Confused on theory that a forward balanced cue helps with follow shots and a rear balanced cue helps with draw shots

N

newcuer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've read before that a forward balanced cue helps with follow shots and a rear balanced cue helps with draw shots. This seems odd to me or counter intuitive.

I would think having a cue more rear balanced would cause the front of the cue to not come down as much naturally and would actually be better for forward shots. And that a forward balanced cue would cause the front of the cue to stay more level easier.

So I am bit confused on this topic.
 
First of all I'm not sure if I buy it, but if I were to take a guess, I would guess it's because follow is trying to deflect the cue tip up and with forward balanced, that might inhibit that action, same thing with draw but opposite of course. Essentially keeping tip contact a fraction longer.
 
Thats why production cues versus custom cues matter.

What matters even more is who makes the custom cue.

Custom balance points require an invite to a cue builders shop.
 
I like a cue that has a neutral balance (and one of the reasons I dislike metal joints) Just enough forward weight so the cue settles gently into the bridge naturally.

I have no problem drawing the length of the table or following the length of the table.

Its the indian not the arrow.
 
MitchAlsup said:
I like a cue that has a neutral balance (and one of the reasons I dislike metal joints) Just enough forward weight so the cue settles gently into the bridge naturally.

I have no problem drawing the length of the table or following the length of the table.

Its the indian not the arrow.
Click to expand...

Sure right Indian is the key, but there is such a thing as a crappy cue. Some transfer energy more than others, that's a fact.
 
Related to the OP, I heard that Luther Lassiter advocated bringing your back foot forward some when playing draw and backing it up for follow. But, then, he also said in at least one interview that he didn't know what he was doing.
 
newcuer said:
I've read before that a forward balanced cue helps with follow shots and a rear balanced cue helps with draw shots. This seems odd to me or counter intuitive.

I would think having a cue more rear balanced would cause the front of the cue to not come down as much naturally and would actually be better for forward shots. And that a forward balanced cue would cause the front of the cue to stay more level easier.

So I am bit confused on this topic.
Click to expand...
The balance point is a function of the grip point. Very few shots can be struck level and of those, I don't think I'd be out on a limb saying even fewer, are. So, given 'all' shots involve inclining downwards at the cue ball, anything requiring or involving a firm or speedier stroke _can_ benefit from a forward balance.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Related to the OP, I heard that Luther Lassiter advocated bringing your back foot forward some when playing draw and backing it up for follow. But, then, he also said in at least one interview that he didn't know what he was doing.
Click to expand...
Plus he was in all those supermen cartoons, {did you know he was one of the first people to play two parts at the same time ?} He was of course Wimpy , but he was also Lex Luther! Don't that send you down Brer rabbits, underground entrance.
 
newcuer said:
I've read before that a forward balanced cue helps with follow shots and a rear balanced cue helps with draw shots. This seems odd to me or counter intuitive.

I would think having a cue more rear balanced would cause the front of the cue to not come down as much naturally and would actually be better for forward shots. And that a forward balanced cue would cause the front of the cue to stay more level easier.

So I am bit confused on this topic.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is the cues weight is more important than balance points.

I play with the heaviest cue that I can use (for me 20-20.5)

The additional weight (compared to an 18-19) helps me get more cue action with less effort.

Maybe Dr. Dave has tested cue action versus cue weight?
 
Last edited:
I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches.

1649935245659.png


1649935267885.png


  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
 
kling&allen said:
I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches.

View attachment 637544

View attachment 637545

  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
Click to expand...

It took a few years of shooting to get used to the standard equipment.

If someone like Venom had that cue do you think he can push it to the limit?

Technical performance testing is not the same as testing for preference.

A heavily seasoned pro should test the different balance points on a battery of situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top