Is it the shaft or the butt

B

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
i think back in the days before LD shafts
the cue makers bushka/szambo/gina/scruggs/etc
had shafts that were the lowest deflection of their time
which let every one play their best
today
searing may have the tightest points etc
but still its how their shafts play is what maintains the rep for "playability"
my2 cents
i am sure others have an opinion...:grin-square:
 
bbb said:
i think back in the days before LD shafts
the cue makers bushka/szambo/gina/scruggs/etc
had shafts that were the lowest deflection of their time
which let every one play their best
today
searing may have the tightest points etc
but still its how their shafts play is what maintains the rep for "playability"
my2 cents
i am sure others have an opinion...:grin-square:
Click to expand...

Your initial assumption is incorrect.

Also - playability depends on the combination of butt and shaft together.

But, other than that - interesting post.

Dale
 
I don't think it was any different then than it is now. The play-ability of cues has changed through the years, agreed, but the ability to play has stayed the same. :)
 
bbb said:
i think back in the days before LD shafts
the cue makers bushka/szambo/gina/scruggs/etc
had shafts that were the lowest deflection of their time
which let every one play their best
today
searing may have the tightest points etc
but still its how their shafts play is what maintains the rep for "playability"
my2 cents
i am sure others have an opinion...:grin-square:
Click to expand...

Evolution of the game and its equipment. I believe back in the day, the shafts were pretty much all the same. It is in the decorative work of the Butt that made the cue valuable, but not necessarily playable. Shafts have been criticized because they would tend to warp more so than the Butt, thereby affecting the performance of the cue. This along with grain direction would affect how the shaft interacts with the ball. (leads into the evolution of the laminated tips). This lead to the development of Laminated shafts. It provided more uniform response and less warping. Then came the evolution of the LD shaft. Less mass at the tip end would provide a more forgiving hit. I wonder if someone from "back in the day" would pick up a cue made from today and give us their opinion. Would they chose to play today's cues over what they used back then? In addion, being a 3C player, I feel better hits with my carom cue than with my normal pocket player. I love the wood pin/joint config, but it is certainly not today's popular joint config.
 
bbb said:
i think back in the days before LD shafts
the cue makers bushka/szambo/gina/scruggs/etc
had shafts that were the lowest deflection of their time
Click to expand...



Really?

Classically those makers provided 13mm stiff taper shafts with heavy ivory ferrules. Those were the lowest deflection of their time?

I am not convinced.


which let every one play their best
Click to expand...

I am not convinced of that either.



Interesting notions though.


.
 
I think the smaller MM LD shafts came from the fact they were laminating maple up and it was too heavy and stiff so they made them thinner and drilled holes in them. The older tight grain maple can't be beat in my opinion, but it is getting harder to get and therefore the market needed something to replace what nature was no longer producing enough of.

I was playing with just over a 12mm shaft and loved the English and draw I could get with it. I switched to an almost 13mm shaft and my shot making improved. Booth had identical ferrules and tips. 12.75 to 13mm was not king for several decades because they played bad.
 
cueman said:
I think the smaller MM LD shafts came from the fact they were laminating maple up and it was too heavy and stiff so they made them thinner and drilled holes in them. The older tight grain maple can't be beat in my opinion, but it is getting harder to get and therefore the market needed something to replace what nature was no longer producing enough of.

I was playing with just over a 12mm shaft and loved the English and draw I could get with it. I switched to an almost 13mm shaft and my shot making improved. Booth had identical ferrules and tips. 12.75 to 13mm was not king for several decades because they played bad.
Click to expand...



I think there is a lot of truth there.

And it speaks to why a lot of us still appreciate those old shafts so much and appreciate newer shafts made from that harder to get wood.



I currently play with a 29 inch Huebler butt made in 1980 with original 31 inch shafts, they are narrow-ish. Don't remember the exact diameter as I type. But I commonly will switch to one of my other cues with old fatter shafts. I still like them.




.
 
Shaft

This is my 2 cents if you want a great shaft, call Mike Johnson (Jensen cues) hes been making cues since 1969 and has been turning shafts down and storing them away for a long time. Put a short ferrule on one of his shafts and youll have best of both worlds low deflection and a great maple shaft. God speed Mike i hope your back in your shop soon.

Also Danny Tibbitts has some great shaft wood store up as well but good luck getting some.
 
It has always been the shooter, not the cue. Since the beginning of time. I'm a big proponent of Predator shafts for my game. But I'm certain after playing with Predator since 1998 or so, if I spent a month with a high deflection scruggs with ivory ferrule, I'd play exactly the same. I'd make that same bet with anyone. Its just not worth the effort to re-learn all the shots, imo. lol.
 
haha you said "shaft". and "butt". :D

It's the shooter not the cue. Most of Efren's playing cues have had regular "high deflection" shafts. He plays pretty good I hear. Technology advancements make this game easier to pick up but it's the same level of difficulty to master regardless of equipment, imho.
 
Chopdoc said:
Really?

Classically those makers provided 13mm stiff taper shafts with heavy ivory ferrules. Those were the lowest deflection of their time?

I am not convinced.


which let every one play their best

I am not convinced of that either.



Interesting notions though.


.
Click to expand...

for sure those shafts were not ld
i am just asking if maybe they were lesser than the others so less compensation was necessary
 
cueman said:
I think the smaller MM LD shafts came from the fact they were laminating maple up and it was too heavy and stiff so they made them thinner and drilled holes in them. The older tight grain maple can't be beat in my opinion, but it is getting harder to get and therefore the market needed something to replace what nature was no longer producing enough of.

I was playing with just over a 12mm shaft and loved the English and draw I could get with it. I switched to an almost 13mm shaft and my shot making improved. Booth had identical ferrules and tips. 12.75 to 13mm was not king for several decades because they played bad.
Click to expand...

Moet.1977 said:
This is my 2 cents if you want a great shaft, call Mike Johnson (Jensen cues) hes been making cues since 1969 and has been turning shafts down and storing them away for a long time. Put a short ferrule on one of his shafts and youll have best of both worlds low deflection and a great maple shaft. God speed Mike i hope your back in your shop soon.

Also Danny Tibbitts has some great shaft wood store up as well but good luck getting some.
Click to expand...

iusedtoberich said:
It has always been the shooter, not the cue. Since the beginning of time. I'm a big proponent of Predator shafts for my game. But I'm certain after playing with Predator since 1998 or so, if I spent a month with a high deflection scruggs with ivory ferrule, I'd play exactly the same. I'd make that same bet with anyone. Its just not worth the effort to re-learn all the shots, imo. lol.
Click to expand...

these posts have nothing to do with my thread
just sayin
thanks for your opinions
 
bbb said:
these posts have nothing to do with my thread
just sayin
thanks for your opinions
Click to expand...

Your original post is littered with personal opinion only, and very little fact. So, their posts fit in just fine with your thread. It's your thread that doesn't make much sense.
 
bbb said:
for sure those shafts were not ld
i am just asking if maybe they were lesser than the others so less compensation was necessary
Click to expand...

Not likely.

Imagine a good old cue with an ivory ferrule. Compare that to a lesser cue with a light fiber ferrule. Those good cues also typically used a 1 inch ferrule while the cheaper cues often used half or 3/4 ferrules.

IMHO lower deflection does not make players better nor does it make the game easier to learn. In fact a more subtle deflection is harder for the novice to detect and compensate for. A larger deflection is more obvious for the novice to see and hence learn to compensate for.

Just my opinion. But I may be biased as I shoot regularly with old traditional shafts and love them.





.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Your original post is littered with personal opinion only, and very little fact. So, their posts fit in just fine with your thread. It's your thread that doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...
i am sorry if i did not make my point clear to you
i guess there is no reason for you to continue to participate
thank you for your response
 
Chopdoc said:
Not likely.

Imagine a good old cue with an ivory ferrule. Compare that to a lesser cue with a light fiber ferrule. Those good cues also typically used a 1 inch ferrule while the cheaper cues often used half or 3/4 ferrules.

IMHO lower deflection does not make players better nor does it make the game easier to learn. In fact a more subtle deflection is harder for the novice to detect and compensate for. A larger deflection is more obvious for the novice to see and hence learn to compensate for.

Just my opinion. But I may be biased as I shoot regularly with old traditional shafts and love them.





.
Click to expand...
chop doc
it could be that the COMBINATION of the butt and the shaft with the skill of the cuemaker when cuemaking techniques were not so readily available to new bees
was the difference
i am open to that option
but speaking from experience
i like ob shafts
when i use them on tascarella/searing/scruggs/gilbert/nitti/bobby hunter/paul dayton/
tad/gina
they all seem to play the same
the difference is the feel of the size of the butt in my hand and the balance point
maybe i should play with all of them with their respective shafts and repot the comparison
 
gus went through logs of shaft wood,

I have 2 of Gus's old shafts. the shafts go on my playing cue. they are both ivory ferruled with different tapers and mm. different shaft weights too, what's f sharp sound like. these shafts feel, feel great. I have used all types. I don't like the cheap construction of the low deflection shafts. Barry Szam. is the other best shaft maker in my eyes. and the butt controls the balance. It works as 1 piece. and on and on! mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top