Update on forward balanced cue questions...

J

jrctherake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not long ago I ask about makers that gravitate to forward balanced cues because I was thinking of buying a 58" cue that was balanced around 21" from the butt cap that weighed 19 oz with no weight bolt.

Well, I had a ( JP version ) pechauer Merry Widow sitting around that had pechauers 5/16 × 14 speed joint.

It has stained curly maple up front and behind with a linen wrap. It had a 2.5 oz bolt in the butt.

Before changes.... full cue weighed 19.25 oz and had 17.75ish inch bal point from butt cap.

To make it more forward balanced, I removed the 2.5 oz bolt and then removed the .75 oz speed joint pin.

I then had a .6 oz weight bolt put in the forearm.

Then i had a 1.4 oz steel radial pin added.

After the change... the cue is 18 oz.

Here is the odd part:

Before changing the bal point, I had to get the cue to 19.25 oz to make it playable or it was to light.

After the change:

The cue weighs 18 oz... but FEELS even heavier than it did at 19.25 oz.... only when in stance.

When holding the cue by the tip end and letting it hang straight down... it feels to light.

If I add enough weight to it to get to 19.25 oz, it feels good while just holding it by tip and letting it hang, but.. lol ... it feels to heavy when in stance.

It moved the bal point up 3.25 inches.

In short:

Since bal and weight change, the cue feels way to light when just holding it, but feels great at just 18 oz while in stance.

This proves "to me" that bal point is more important than weight at any given length.
 
jrctherake said:
Not long ago I ask about makers that gravitate to forward balanced cues because I was thinking of buying a 58" cue that was balanced around 21" from the butt cap that weighed 19 oz with no weight bolt.

Well, I had a ( JP version ) pechauer Merry Widow sitting around that had pechauers 5/16 × 14 speed joint.

It has stained curly maple up front and behind with a linen wrap. It had a 2.5 oz bolt in the butt.

Before changes.... full cue weighed 19.25 oz and had 17.75ish inch bal point from butt cap.

To make it more forward balanced, I removed the 2.5 oz bolt and then removed the .75 oz speed joint pin.

I then had a .6 oz weight bolt put in the forearm.

Then i had a 1.4 oz steel radial pin added.

After the change... the cue is 18 oz.

Here is the odd part:

Before changing the bal point, I had to get the cue to 19.25 oz to make it playable or it was to light.

After the change:

The cue weighs 18 oz... but FEELS even heavier than it did at 19.25 oz.... only when in stance.

When holding the cue by the tip end and letting it hang straight down... it feels to light.

If I add enough weight to it to get to 19.25 oz, it feels good while just holding it by tip and letting it hang, but.. lol ... it feels to heavy when in stance.

It moved the bal point up 3.25 inches.

In short:

Since bal and weight change, the cue feels way to light when just holding it, but feels great at just 18 oz while in stance.

This proves "to me" that bal point is more important than weight at any given length.
Click to expand...
I think I said this in the other thread 😉
 
right on, have noticed this myself
the same weight cue with a balance point further up feels heavier
what I'd like to know is how to best take that into consideration when cue shopping
i.e. how x cue will feel at x weight with x balance point
I meant to chime in on the other thread, dig the convo..some fine posts on the subject
 
Patrick Johnson said:
More important to how it feels to you.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
PJ, I'm finding that the heavier a cue is, the more forward balanced I like iy
evergruven said:
right on, have noticed this myself
the same weight cue with a balance point further up feels heavier
what I'd like to know is how to best take that into consideration when cue shopping
i.e. how x cue will feel at x weight with x balance point
I meant to chime in on the other thread, dig the convo..some fine posts on the subject
Click to expand...
Balance point is something that gets pushed aside by most, when in fact.... the bal point of a cue is one of the more important specs.

Shopping for a cue is stressful to people that truly understand how different build methods and materials can and "will" make it great or a dud.

That's one reason why a lot of folks stay with the same cue for years on end.

Trying to replace any cue that you're used to is one of the hardest things to do for players that know how to and rely on the "feel" of a cue.
 
jrctherake said:
Balance point is something that gets pushed aside by most, when in fact.... the bal point of a cue is one of the more important specs.
Click to expand...

totally agree..tho I admit I might be affected by BP more than most
my reach isn't very long, so I physically can't reach the back of the cue
I also use an open bridge, so having enough weight in the shaft is important
 
evergruven said:
totally agree..tho I admit I might be affected by BP more than most
my reach isn't very long, so I physically can't reach the back of the cue
I also use an open bridge, so having enough weight in the shaft is important
Click to expand...
Yep.... even the more experienced players put the bal point spec of a cue to far down on the list.

Even worse, a lot of players "think" bal point is all preference and shouldn't be worried about and just "adjust" to it regardless of what it happens to be. lol
 
jrctherake said:
Even worse, a lot of players "think" bal point is all preference and shouldn't be worried about and just "adjust" to it regardless of what it happens to be. lol
Click to expand...

yea..it's a sweet thing that pool players have access to fully-customized cues, so why not take advantage?
kind of funny timing, I just watched an interview where keith mccready vouched for front-balanced cues ^_^
 
How a cue feels going through the ball is all that matters to me. I don’t get too involved in the numbers. The numbers are a good guideline if your trying to duplicate a “feel” I suppose but they aren’t super accurate. Each cue seems to be its own thing.

Happy you doing what you like

Best
Fatboy 😃
 
jrctherake said:
I'm finding that I can play with anything between 17ish oz to 23ish oz regardless of length as long as the balance suits me.

I may feel different in 30 minutes.... lol
Click to expand...


I fooled with weight and balance points some many years ago now. While weight and balance point work together to create feel I also found that the weight had a much more direct effect on stroke feel and cue ball control. In the testing I went from fifteen or sixteen ounces and worked up to twenty-six ounces then jumped to a full 32 ounces. What I found was there was a most comfortable weight where the cue's weight was doing a portion of the work but wasn't trying to overpower the stroke. Shouldn't be much of a surprise that this "ideal" weight was around 19 ounces, a very common cue weight. I compare it to carpenters hammers after driving nails for a month or two. A carpenter who does all around work usually has a trim hammer at around sixteen ounces, a general purpose hammer at about twenty ounces, and a framing or form hammer that weighs about twenty-four ounces and may have a little longer handle. It sucked to try to drive twelve or sixteen penny nails with the sixteen ounce hammer and the big hammer badly overpowered brads and six penny nails.

While I liked the feel of the cue at around nineteen ounces, the lightest cue at fifteen or sixteen ounces gave me more control. I later took this to an extreme playing mostly bar table pool with a twelve ounce sixty inch snooker cue. One piece to get the weight down that light and it still had good balance. Damn was that thing hard to play pool with! A couple guys I respected were using these cues too and liked them, along with an original Jensen milkdud tip. This was early to mid eighties. The tip installed cost almost as much as the cue but altogether it was less than $25.

It took several months but I gained a level of speed control hard to believe. I could put a dot on the table and "shade" it with the cue ball most of the time in normal play. This eventually translated to house cues and I went off on a new tear after not playing for six or eight years while married. That cue was in the back of an old station wagon when I hurt my back. I didn't worry about it thinking I would just get another if it warped too badly to play with. It indeed warped like a shillelagh! When I went to get another Brunswick had quit offering them.

It seems counter intuitive but the best feeling cue may not be the one you play best with. One thing about that twelve ounce snooker cue, it also had about a 10mm tip. First time I hit balls with it I went for a fairly easy thin table length cut on a bar table with a little juice to get the cue ball around the table and back to me. I missed the object ball about two inches! Not the pocket, the ball itself. Years later and low deflection became all the rage. That was when I realized I was low deflection long before it was cool! I wouldn't be surprised if that twelve ounce cue wasn't lower deflection than anything on the market today.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I fooled with weight and balance points some many years ago now. While weight and balance point work together to create feel I also found that the weight had a much more direct effect on stroke feel and cue ball control. In the testing I went from fifteen or sixteen ounces and worked up to twenty-six ounces then jumped to a full 32 ounces. What I found was there was a most comfortable weight where the cue's weight was doing a portion of the work but wasn't trying to overpower the stroke. Shouldn't be much of a surprise that this "ideal" weight was around 19 ounces, a very common cue weight. I compare it to carpenters hammers after driving nails for a month or two. A carpenter who does all around work usually has a trim hammer at around sixteen ounces, a general purpose hammer at about twenty ounces, and a framing or form hammer that weighs about twenty-four ounces and may have a little longer handle. It sucked to try to drive twelve or sixteen penny nails with the sixteen ounce hammer and the big hammer badly overpowered brads and six penny nails.

While I liked the feel of the cue at around nineteen ounces, the lightest cue at fifteen or sixteen ounces gave me more control. I later took this to an extreme playing mostly bar table pool with a twelve ounce sixty inch snooker cue. One piece to get the weight down that light and it still had good balance. Damn was that thing hard to play pool with! A couple guys I respected were using these cues too and liked them, along with an original Jensen milkdud tip. This was early to mid eighties. The tip installed cost almost as much as the cue but altogether it was less than $25.

It took several months but I gained a level of speed control hard to believe. I could put a dot on the table and "shade" it with the cue ball most of the time in normal play. This eventually translated to house cues and I went off on a new tear after not playing for six or eight years while married. That cue was in the back of an old station wagon when I hurt my back. I didn't worry about it thinking I would just get another if it warped too badly to play with. It indeed warped like a shillelagh! When I went to get another Brunswick had quit offering them.

It seems counter intuitive but the best feeling cue may not be the one you play best with. One thing about that twelve ounce snooker cue, it also had about a 10mm tip. First time I hit balls with it I went for a fairly easy thin table length cut on a bar table with a little juice to get the cue ball around the table and back to me. I missed the object ball about two inches! Not the pocket, the ball itself. Years later and low deflection became all the rage. That was when I realized I was low deflection long before it was cool! I wouldn't be surprised if that twelve ounce cue wasn't lower deflection than anything on the market today.

Hu
Click to expand...
Hu, I've enjoyed hearing that story through PM.

I always enjoy hearing your experiences in pool as well as other areas.

I agree, what feels best may not be what is best.

Hard to tell though....
 
johnnyjumpjump said:
Given that balance point is almost never described in a cue sales add, regardless of price, pool players (sellers and purchasers) disregard its importance.
Click to expand...
Yep. In general, the balance point should be "x" inches in front of the grip hand while in stance.

There are some that like the bal point to be even or behind their grip hand. Those same players usually don't do well off the rail or shooting over balls.

There are exceptions, but I believe that is a good rule of thumb.
 
I think Diviney cues have the perfect balance. My wife had one for years. I liked the balance. It's not front heavy, but just a super neutral feel, it almost disappears in your hands. I guess it's more front balanced than my old McDermott with a weight bolt, but it just feels super neutral. I bought my new cue from Pat and asked what the weight was. He didn't remember but said he could weigh it for me, I said never mind, it doesn't really matter, it feels perfect.

I really think balance point is probably as important or maybe a bit more important than weight to a certain degree.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What difference do you think it makes other than preference?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I've got a buddy that is 5' 1" tall and has a wing span of only 59".

Well, if he tries to play with a cue that is 58" with a balance point of anything less than 19" inches from butt cap.... he can't use an open bridge on any shot. The cue will not stay down because his grip hand is so close to the bal point.

I've told him to buy a 57" cue that was balanced at around 19" and he would be well pleased.

Well, he did exactly that and now he is happy as a lark.

Have a another friend that is much taller. He is 6' 4". He uses a 60" cue with the balance point at 17".

He holds the cue close to the butt end and for the bal point to be close enough (but not to close), it can't be more than 17" from butt end.

I understand it may or may not work out that way on paper, but it's the way a lot of..... if not most players "feel" is best.

As I said, "that is proof enough for me".
 
boogieman said:
I think Diviney cues have the perfect balance. My wife had one for years. I liked the balance. It's not front heavy, but just a super neutral feel, it almost disappears in your hands. I guess it's more front balanced than my old McDermott with a weight bolt, but it just feels super neutral. I bought my new cue from Pat and asked what the weight was. He didn't remember but said he could weigh it for me, I said never mind, it doesn't really matter, it feels perfect.

I really think balance point is probably as important or maybe a bit more important than weight to a certain degree.
Click to expand...
It would be hard to find a Diviney cue that did not play well. His cues are great players.

And yes, in my experience Diviney cues are normally more neutral balanced. I like a neutral bal cue as long as it isn't to light and is 18.75 oz to 19.5 oz at 58" or 59".... but no longer. Any longer and the weight needs to come up to keep it neutral.

Thanks for sharing sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top