Playing differences in length of pro taper

[336Robin]

Personal preference

I like 12.80mm tip and 14-16 pro taper. Thats what I like to play with. I play well with 13mm short taper and like the feel but when I start spinning the cue ball a lot I do much better with the longer taper and thinner shaft.

There is a big difference in the cue ball squirt between the two.

I know the differences in the different types of tapers, but I have a question that I am struggling to find an answer for, so want to stick to "pro tapers". I did a pretty extensive search and never really saw a direct answer.

What I am looking for are what are the playing differences that occur when a pro taper is lengthened?

Say you go from a 12" to 14" pro or even to a 20" like Earl.

I would think that a 14" pro taper is whippier than a 12" taper and a 20" pro tape is whippier than a 14".

Using a golf flag pole as an example, the taller it is the more the top of the flag pole will flex side to side in the wind, so I would think the flex from side to side would increase dramatically as the taper increases, which would make it whippier.

So it would seem the longer the taper, the more it deviates from a conical, European or SW style taper.

Is this true? Seems like it could be pretty complicated and it never seems to really be discussed. It always winds up a discussion of conical vs. pro, but I am very interested to hear thoughts on effects of the length of the pro taper itself.

 

[Bob 14:1]

Based on both physics theory and experiments, this is false.

Bob 14.1...Plain answer is...it doesn't. Don't believe everything you read here.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Thank you Bob and Scott. I poured over Dave's section on cue tip hardness, etc. last night, (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html) and I'm starting to grasp things in my own feeble way. Some tricky stuff here. I loved the link to confirmation bias.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

The confirmation bias goes a long way in explaining the plethora of cue tip and chalk threads... :wink:

 

[Bob 14:1]

Bob and Scott, et al...

What prompted my inquiry was my continuing lack of efficiency with long draw shots, and also long follow shots.

I have a shaft at Seyberts and I'm having it re-tipped, but I told them to hold off 'til I can determine which hardness I want. (overpriced Zan Premium )

If I'm following the above texts correctly, my abilities are definitely more stoke related than they are the result of selecting a hard, medium or soft tip.

Is this a pretty fair statement? I'll continue to read and watch videos as I continue to practice my draw and follow inadequacies. FX also gives me all the fundamentals, so I guess it's time for some more practice and drills...

This game is difficult enough without my attempting to correct something which, in reality, is not at all the reason for my poor performance, etc.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Food for thought.
The longer that no-taper is, the more prone it is to warpage

 

[Scott Lee]

Bob 14.1...Stroke related? Most definitely! With a good stroke it doesn't matter what the tip hardness is....that, like tip shape, shaft size, etc, have nothing to do with being able to draw or follow the CB easily, even at 4-5 feet between the two balls. I'm happy to work you into my schedule when I come to CO in the next couple of months (or S MS next month, if you're still there).

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Bob and Scott, et al...

What prompted my inquiry was my continuing lack of efficiency with long draw shots, and also long follow shots.

I have a shaft at Seyberts and I'm having it re-tipped, but I told them to hold off 'til I can determine which hardness I want. (overpriced Zan Premium )

If I'm following the above texts correctly, my abilities are definitely more stoke related than they are the result of selecting a hard, medium or soft tip.

Is this a pretty fair statement? I'll continue to read and watch videos as I continue to practice my draw and follow inadequacies. FX also gives me all the fundamentals, so I guess it's time for some more practice and drills...

This game is difficult enough without my attempting to correct something which, in reality, is not at all the reason for my poor performance, etc.

 

[Bob Callahan]

Bob and Scott, et al...

What prompted my inquiry was my continuing lack of efficiency with long draw shots, and also long follow shots.

For draw: Smooth, level stroke. Follow through until the tip touches the cloth. It helps to visualize a point past the cue ball that you are aiming for, as if the cue ball isn't there. Make sure you are hitting the cue ball near the miscue limit. Lot's of people aim there, but hit higher. Don't try to snap the cue back...after it has hit the ball, your actions mean nothing. Try soft stroking at near the miscue limit, until you know you are hitting it right--it'll surprise you how much action you get this way. Gradually add power as you get more confident. In general, accuracy in draw is far more important than power! Practice drawing to different distances from the object ball. It's much too easy to under draw, or over draw.

Good luck!

 

[Bob 14:1]

For draw: Smooth, level stroke. Follow through until the tip touches the cloth. It helps to visualize a point past the cue ball that you are aiming for, as if the cue ball isn't there. Make sure you are hitting the cue ball near the miscue limit. Lot's of people aim there, but hit higher. Don't try to snap the cue back...after it has hit the ball, your actions mean nothing. Try soft stroking at near the miscue limit, until you know you are hitting it right--it'll surprise you how much action you get this way. Gradually add power as you get more confident. In general, accuracy in draw is far more important than power! Practice drawing to different distances from the object ball. It's much too easy to under draw, or over draw.

Good luck!

Thank you for the tips and encouragement, Bob! :thumbup:

 

[bboyer1969]

Thank you Bob and Scott. I poured over Dave's section on cue tip hardness, etc. last night, (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html) and I'm starting to grasp things in my own feeble way. Some tricky stuff here. I loved the link to confirmation bias.
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html

The confirmation bias goes a long way in explaining the plethora of cue tip and chalk threads...

I quit arguing with people about tips back in 1996. I was a big fan of Robert Byrne and his videos. He mentioned hard tips get maximum spin in his video and talked about the the physics behind it while mentioning Bob Jewett. I have been using hard tips (78 to 86 on hardness scale) ever since. I researched The Jackaon Project way back then in the early internet days and found the pdf's by Mr. Jewett, I have stuck by that since I learned about it. Lastly, in the past few years I discovered Dr. Dave with his video's and website. He is a physics guy. I have emailed him to say that his teaching style and humor reminded me of Robert Byrne in the old VHS tapes I have. Come to find out, Robert Byrne was a big influence to his teaching style. I just wanted to jump in as I agree, people have many theories on tips and chalk. Physics and slow-motion video debunks everything