THICK VS THIN SHAFTS

Gene Nagy played pool with a snooker cue probably for at least a year. I asked him if he felt like he was getting more side spin that way. He said no, he was just able to hit the cue ball more precisely. When I practiced with him, it didn't seem like he got more spin --- it seemed pretty much the same as his 12 1/4 tip on his other playing cue. But his accuracy with the snooker cue was amazing. The only reason he stopped playing with a snooker cue was because of the constant tip maintenance.
 
phreaticus said:
I think this short video is a good representation of popular opinion on the subject & most shaft marketing materials.
Click to expand...
To start with his first point: he makes the same mistake others do - assuming a wider tip means a wider contact area. I get it - that can easily be misleading.

But if tips of different widths are the same hardness and curvature, their contact areas are too - they're essentially the same tip except one's missing a tiny outer layer. To me this is simple logic, not physics.

The same logic applies to the claim of "more spin" with a thinner tip - if both tips are the same hardness and curvature, and offset the same distance from center, they'll contact the CB in the same place, producing the same amount of spin. The only real difference is that the thinner tip might miscue slightly sooner, but even that difference is tiny.

So my logic says curvature and hardness, not width. Does yours say different?

pj
chgo
 
FranCrimi said:
Gene Nagy played pool with a snooker cue probably for at least a year. I asked him if he felt like he was getting more side spin that way. He said no, he was just able to hit the cue ball more precisely. When I practiced with him, it didn't seem like he got more spin --- it seemed pretty much the same as his 12 1/4 tip on his other playing cue. But his accuracy with the snooker cue was amazing. The only reason he stopped playing with a snooker cue was because of the constant tip maintenance.
Click to expand...
I've played for 25+ years with a 9.5-10mm (hard, layered) tip and my experience is the same as Nagy's (except for the constant tip maintenance).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I haven't seen literature like that - can you point to some?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I just saw your comments on the subject of tip placement, and other things tip related.
So, you don't agree that bigger tip is more forgiving?
I have seen a lot of people talk about getting unwanted spin with z shafts vs 314 shafts due to magnified stroke errors by smaller tip of z shaft. Here is a claim by predator, about extra spin and more exact tip placement. I notice you disagree with those categorizations.
xxmxxCapture.JPG
 
Patrick Johnson said:
To start with his first point: he makes the same mistake others do - assuming a wider tip means a wider contact area. I get it - that can easily be misleading.

But if tips of different widths are the same hardness and curvature, their contact areas are too - they're essentially the same tip except one's missing a tiny outer layer. To me this is simple logic, not physics.

The same logic applies to the claim of "more spin" with a thinner tip - if both tips are the same hardness and curvature, and offset the same distance from center, they'll contact the CB in the same place, producing the same amount of spin. The only real difference is that the thinner tip might miscue sooner, but even that difference is tiny.

So my logic says curvature and hardness, not width. Does yours say different?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I think you have explained your opinion on this subject at every opportunity it comes up for years. I already explained my view above, which is that I don't know and don't care. It doesn't seem anyone really knows, and it doesn't matter much as its all a bunch of intertwined micro variables and pro/con tradeoffs associated with the hardware, each person's anatomy, subjective psychological factors, and playing style. A shaft with a slightly narrower or rounder tip shape might add 3% more spin, but might be 4% lighter, resulting in a tiny bit more velocity at the same stroke speed. Said shaft might also have a hair more or less deflection, relative to the original. So who knows WTF is really going on? Add in primacy & confirmation bias factors, and what you have is this never ending soup of opinions.

Find some stick you like and try to get better with it, I'm an Indian vs arrow guy. I suggested what seems like the most simple/reliable way for the OP to experiment & test the theory for himself. I have nothing to debate, and nothing to add.
 
Last edited:
Wolven said:
So, you don't agree that bigger tip is more forgiving?
Click to expand...
You picked up on that, huh? :)
Wolven said:
I have seen a lot of people talk about getting unwanted spin with z shafts vs 314 shafts due to magnified stroke errors by smaller tip of z shaft.
Click to expand...
Me too - probably scores or hundreds over the years (not all about Predator). Never heard a logical explanation though.
Wolven said:
Here is a claim by predator, about extra spin and more exact tip placement. I notice you disagree with those categorizations.
Click to expand...
I give profit-motivated marketers like Predator less credence, not more. And I don't see any reasoning behind their claims.

The claim of more exact tip placement can be true, but not by much, and not because of any special tip quality - just that there's a little less of it blocking the view. And that doesn't mean the tip produces more spin; even though it helps you produce more accurate amounts of spin.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I've played for 25+ years with a 9.5-10mm (hard, layered) tip and my experience is the same as Nagy's (except for the constant tip maintenance).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I wish I could remember the size of his, but I can't. I do recall that he had to use a brass ferrule so the tip wouldn't pop off. I don't think he was using a layered tip and it kept flattening and mushrooming. But he did play 8 hours a day, so that may have had something to do with it, and he was no stranger to using force to move the cue ball around the table.
 
FranCrimi said:
I wish I could remember the size of his, but I can't. I do recall that he had to use a brass ferrule so the tip wouldn't pop off. I don't think he was using a layered tip and it kept flattening and mushrooming. But he did play 8 hours a day, so that may have had something to do with it, and he was no stranger to using force to move the cue ball around the table.
Click to expand...
Same here. My shaft's taper is conical (straight from tip to joint), so pretty stiff, and I feel comfortable with the hardest shots (I did once crack my 1/4" plastic ferrule, but that tip was too thin).

pj
chgo
 
IMO tip size means nothing. And who am I???
Nobody!
A smaller tip size makes it easier to know where the tip will hit the CB.
That's the only thing creating the confusion.

If you have a large tip it's simply a little harder to judge what part of that tip is actually contacting the CB. That take practice.
Without proof, I'm going to guess that players with 13mm tips that are struggling with this aren't paying attention.

It's not the diameter.

It's YOU not paying attention.
 
So it looks like this one died but I have a related question. I suppose this has been discussed before but I don't remember in these terms.
What tip radius allows for more spin?

I remember a graphic from Patrick Johnson that depicted a nickle vs dime radius at the CB. It seemed to show more tip surface area of contact with a dime radius. I think the graphic was about a very low draw shot.

A larger surface area may indicate a larger margin of error for miss cue, but would a smaller point of contact allow for more spin?
I'm just thinking a more concentrated point of impact might produce more spin.

I'm sure the difference is very likely minimal but, since we're in the weeds......
I always have deet on hand, so ready for anything.
 
3kushn said:
A smaller tip size makes it easier to know where the tip will hit the CB.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's about it.

3kushn said:
I remember a graphic from Patrick Johnson that depicted a nickle vs dime radius at the CB. It seemed to show more tip surface area of contact with a dime radius. I think the graphic was about a very low draw shot.
Click to expand...
I don't remember that, and I don't believe tip size has anything to do with contact area. Curvature and softness, maybe.

3kushn said:
A larger surface area may indicate a larger margin of error for miss cue, but would a smaller point of contact allow for more spin?
I'm just thinking a more concentrated point of impact might produce more spin.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of those is true.

pj
chgo
 
3kushn said:
So it looks like this one died but I have a related question. I suppose this has been discussed before but I don't remember in these terms.
What tip radius allows for more spin?

I remember a graphic from Patrick Johnson that depicted a nickle vs dime radius at the CB. It seemed to show more tip surface area of contact with a dime radius. I think the graphic was about a very low draw shot.

A larger surface area may indicate a larger margin of error for miss cue, but would a smaller point of contact allow for more spin?
I'm just thinking a more concentrated point of impact might produce more spin.

I'm sure the difference is very likely minimal but, since we're in the weeds......
I always have deet on hand, so ready for anything.
Click to expand...
you can find what i think you are looking for here
billiards.colostate.edu

Cue Tip Size and Shape Effects - Dr. Dave Pool Info

Answers to frequently-asked questions about cue tip shape and size effects.
billiards.colostate.edu billiards.colostate.edu
 
bbb said:
you can find what i think you are looking for here
billiards.colostate.edu

Cue Tip Size and Shape Effects - Dr. Dave Pool Info

Answers to frequently-asked questions about cue tip shape and size effects.
billiards.colostate.edu billiards.colostate.edu
Click to expand...
That Dr. Dave link actually supports why many people believe smaller diameter tips, particularly with smaller radii (dime vs nickel), create more spin:

One advantage of a flatter tip is that a center-ball hit, with some tip placement inaccuracy, will generally have less unintentional english (and unexpected squirt/swerve/throw). In other words, a larger, flatter tip is more “forgiving” with misalignment errors for near-center-ball hits. It may also be easier to control small amounts of sidespin since more cue offset is required to create more sidespin, as compared to a rounder tip.
Click to expand...
And the diagram is useful:
tip_shape.png


When I was still a raw beginner (so for about 20 years) I noticed that I seemed to get more spin when I tried smaller-diameter shafts and of course this was due to my stroke inaccuracies. And even with a slightly more accurate stroke now, I recently switched from 12.5 to 11.8 and noticed different results--sometimes more spin, sometimes less. This of course is due to the fact that with a different diameter, I was now striking the cue ball slightly differently given the same perception of cue placement. But sometimes I would get more spin than expected, which could be interpreted by some as proof by confirmation bias if they were already a believer in the "smaller shaft diameter gives more spin" myth.

All that is to say that for a given contact point, there is no difference. But for someone switching shaft diameters, they may see more spin simply because they are now striking the cue ball in a different location than expected: if someone judges their tip placement from the outside of the cue ball then a smaller diameter shaft will actually strike the cue ball farther out from center than a larger diameter shaft.
 
After reading all the arguments it boils down to this;
Play with what you have confidence in. You can have the most expensive, technically advanced shaft in the world but if you have no confidence in it what good is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top