Pros or cons playing with light shaft (approximately 3.0 oz)

[Fore Rail]

Tell you what I'll give out the CliffsNotes version using my 16 oz 3/8 x 11 butt in the example.

Using your 18% to 22% sweet spot.

The range is from a 3.4 oz shaft to a 4.6 oz shaft.

That is over 1.2 ounces in shaft weight.

Now in another post of yours Bava you said "not that 17% or 23% is wrong" so let's add that in there as well.

So now we are in a range of 3.3 oz to 4.8 which is a full 1.5 ounces.

Now some of weights on the high end are on the unlrealistic side of things naturally, but for arguments sake I will still use them.

So what does this all tell me? Shaft weight really doesn't matter much at all.

 

[Bavafongoul]

Hey now…..calm down…..you asked a question…..I answered it….I’m not here to do your bidding.

Get off your own fat sss and figure it out or don’t. I really couldn’t give a shit either way. Buy whatever
you like, play with whatever you like. It means nada to me. I have what I want in a cue and I proved
several noteworthy cue makers were wrong when they told me the KW shafts I wanted built couldn’t
be done unless they added weight. Hogwash, and if they read my posts, what’ya got to say now fellas?

 

[Bavafongoul]

I don’t want to debate this with you cuz this is not a quarrel. There is nothing in life that is it in clad when it comes to pool cues. What won’t man likes another may not. % variances are more slight with a 18 ounce cue than a 20 oz. cue.

If someone likes a shaft that weighs 17% of the playing weight, that’s not wrong for them. The same is true for upper weight ranges. But if you ever take the time to test my theory by researching cues actually built and sold, the shafts fall within the parameters I cited. You may find a 17.4% shaft or 23% but the vast, overwhelming cues built fall within the range I came up with. I am merely recapping the facts……the best cue makers built their pool cues this way.

I’ve done the research & apparently you haven’t. Start looking at for sale ads on cue dealer websites and even this one.
Track it, see how regularly this holds true and when there is a variation that seems significant, my gut tells me the buyer ordered it that way since it is atypical of what that cue maker builds. So Nuf Ced….I know I am right….facts prove it.

 

[Fore Rail]

I don’t want to debate this with you cuz this is not a quarrel. There is nothing in life that is it in clad when it comes to pool cues. What won’t man likes another may not. % variances are more slight with a 18 ounce cue than a 20 oz. cue.

If someone likes a shaft that weighs 17% of the playing weight, that not wrong….for them. The same is true for upper weight ranges. But if you ever take the time to test my theory by researchin* cues actually built and sold, the shafts fall within the parameters I cited. You may find a 17.4% shat or 23% but the vast, overwhelming cues built fall within the range I came up with. I am merely recapping the facts……the best cue makers built their pool cues this way.

I’ve done the research & apparently you haven’t. Start looking at for sale ads on cue dealer websites and even this one.
Track it, see how regularly this holds true and when there is a variation that seems significant, my gut tells me the buyer ordered it that way since it is atypical of what that cue maker builds. So Nuf Ced….I know I am right….facts prove it.

Of course I've done the research, hell I can't help but do the research. You spam the forum with your BS all the time.

You know why the vast overwhelming number of cues built fall within the range you came up with?

Because the weight range of shafts that fits your model is over an ounce!!

In closing,

GFY & welcome to ignore

 

[lfigueroa]

I am looking to buy a kielwood shaft that only weights 3.o oz. I had a chance to test hit it with the butt I would use it with and liked it. Balance point is right at 19", so that is not an issue for me. However, I am not going to have a chance to give it a long term try before purchasing.

Appreciate input from anyone that has played with a shaft that light, or anyone that has thoughts about playing with a shaft that light.

Thanks in advance for any response.

Not too long ago I bought a used cue with two shafts -- one shaft came in at exactly 4oz the other at 3.4oz.

Standing at the table the lighter shaft made the cue feel like it was about to float away before my bridge hand could catch it to get into shooting position. The heavier shaft is perfect. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa
got another
4oz shaft made

 

[Island Drive]

The balance point and weight of a well made Balabuska, create thee best control/Feel of your cue ball action when doing follow or ''force follow'' shots.
When you lighten the cues front end your diminishing your feel and Control for these type of cue ball strikes.

 

[GoldCrown]

Can the shaft be exchanged if you do not like it. Or sell it and take a small hit (no pun). Pros/cons? It works or does not work. It’s how it feels in your hands.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

My favorite cue in the case has a fixed butt weight of 16 oz.

I have had in my posssesion a OB Phoenix shaft that weighed 2.8 ounces

So for sake of argument let's make that the bottom end & go with 4.2 oz on the top end.

Run the numbers Bava for me and the entire forum for say every 2/10 of an ounce.

I at least used to respect his conviction, but over the past few weeks it went from 'a shaft has to be an exact percentage' to 'there is about a 1oz range' to 'if it feels good, it's good'.

But it still needs ivory...

 

[fastone371]

<<<<<< Has no idea what any owned shaft weighs and will not be weighing them anytime soon. I guess when you hold the cue near the butt cap they all feel forward balanced.

 

[couldnthinkof01]

<<<<<< Has no idea what any owned shaft weighs and will not be weighing them anytime soon. I guess when you hold the cue near the butt cap they all feel forward balanced.

I think holding back there makes a big difference. I hold mine towards the front of the wrap. I have cues of various balance points.
I like the balance point around 20-20.5" from the butt(before the rubber bumper). If it's less, the front feels floaty like Lou said.

 

[Bavafongoul]

If you always hold the cue in the same grip position on the cue butt, you are not taking advantage of the cue’s
balance. For more difficult shots that are more finesse and slower cue ball speed control for position versus OBs
that are 8-9’ away or frozen on the foot or head rails, repositioning your grip on the butt allows you to take more
advantage of your ability to direct and better control how the cue ball performs after striking the object balls.

Ever watch a golf professional change their hand positions on the golf club for added distance, higher ball flight, added spin, shaping the flight of the golf ball, playing a ball from deeper grass, embedded in the fairway, tough lies, etc. The pro golfer, or any really good amateur, places their hands on the club to grip it based on the type of shot that needs to be attempted. There is no single position or area on the grip to hold a golf club. You hold it differently for different, difficult shots based on the circumstances. Well, I believe that a pool cue is really not any different.

 

[Island Drive]

Very nice explanation....

 

[Bavafongoul]

Of course I've done the research, hell I can't help but do the research. You spam the forum with your BS all the time.

You know why the vast overwhelming number of cues built fall within the range you came up with?

Because the weight range of shafts that fits your model is over an ounce!!

In closing,

GFY & welcome to ignore

Actually the math for a 18, 19 & 20 oz. cues, as examples, the shaft weight difference range is 0.75 - 0.8 ounces
for the % ratios I’ve explained. 18 oz. cue is 3.25 - 4 ozs, 19 oz. cue is 3.4 - 4.2 and 20 oz. 3.6 - 4.4 shaft weights.

Now for the dim witted, when you go above or below these weight ratios I’ve explained, you can still fall in love with
your pool cue. It is a individual decision and not fixed in stone but the best cue makers abided by this building cues.

So everyone that scorns, mocks, ridicules my posts explaining this, I again challenge you to do the homework. I have & always do when I see a for sale ad for a cue. It is ingrained in my evaluation of a pool cue. The greatest cue maker
I ever had the privilege of speaking with told me he builds his pool cues this way because this is how he was taught.

So I offered this information as a form of paying it forward so that others can contemplate this when trying different cues and perhaps wondering why they liked one cue over another or was even shopping for a pre-owned pool cue. The shaft weight ratio has a direct bearing on how the cue feels to any pool player but many players don’t consider it cuz they don’t know.

 

[Fore Rail]

Actually the math for a 18, 19 & 20 oz. cues, as examples, the shaft weight difference range is 0.75 - 0.8 ounces
for the % ratios I’ve explained. 18 oz. cue is 3.25 - 4 ozs, 19 oz. cue is 3.4 - 4.2 and 20 oz. 3.6 - 4.4 shaft weights.

Do you really think I haven't done the homework?

Why don't you tell the forum the whole story behind the numbers above?

For everyone, those numbers are achieved by varying the butt weights along with the changing shaft weights to equal 18-20 ounces.

But what about those who don't have the luxury(or just don't want to) of changing the weight in the butt of their cue?

Shaft weight can now vary from 1.0 oz to 1.2 oz on each cue weighing 18-20 ounces & still hit the Bava mark at 18%-22%.

Now for the dim witted, when you go above or below these weight ratios I’ve explained, you can still fall in love with
your pool cue. It is a individual decision and not fixed in stone but the best cue makers abided by this building cues.

Tom Watters over at Recollection Cues sold 2 Tim Prince cues listed at almost $7000 with a shaft that was only - get this 17%!! He has another one the same way still listed. I'm sure it won't sell because of that. Oh my gosh you had better contact both of them & set them straight!!

Ever watch a golf professional change their hand positions on the golf club for added distance, higher ball flight, added spin, shaping the flight of the golf ball, playing a ball from deeper grass, embedded in the fairway, tough lies, etc. The pro golfer, or any really good amateur, places their hands on the club to grip it based on the type of shot that needs to be attempted. There is no single position or area on the grip to hold a golf club. You hold it differently for different, difficult shots based on the circumstances. Well, I believe that a pool cue is really not any different.

Now for the dim witted.

What you are saying above is just about totally wrong. Having said these methods were used way back in the day most likely because what is known now was not then.

Today it's setup, swing path & the club face relationship to that path that curves the golf ball. Ball position dictates the height of the ball flight. Firmer grip pressure may be used in deep rough in an effort to prevent the clubhead from turning over.

Stick to what you know Bava, whatever that may be.

 

[Poolplaya9]

You take the shaft weight of 4.2 ounces and divide it
by the cue’s playing weight that we know to be 20.2 ozs. (16 oz. Butt & 4.2 oz. Shaft). You get 0.0279 or the %
equivalent of 20.79% which can rounded to 20.8% weight proportionality. The shaft represents almost 21% of
the assembled cue’s playing weight. As I tried my best to explain, there is a rule of thumb approach used by the
best cue makers striving to match a shaft to a cue butt to achieve the best hitting combination. This is just a fact.

This is absolute hogwash and does not provide a "best hit", as if such a thing even exists. It does however provide the weight and balance point that many people prefer (and that some others don't) based on their personal preferences.

Many cue makers make heavy shafts for these reasons:

1. It can be used as a selling point. They will claim they are superior for reasons that sound intuitive to many people, and many people will buy into because of that, but it is actually nonsense that is not supported by the evidence.

2. More people than not, especially in recent decades, prefer a cue with some level of "forward" balance, and you can't as easily make a forward weighted cue with a very light shaft. There is nothing inherently superior about a forward balanced cue though. Whatever balance point a person most prefers (whether rear or forward) is the one they will ultimately shoot the best with, although within reason people can get used to just about any balance point and shoot at 99+% with it if they give it the time.

3. People became convinced that old growth tight grained wood "hit" a certain way that was superior, and those shafts are usually heavier (which also led some to falsely conclude that heavier shafts hit better). So even when a cue maker wasn't using old growth tight grained wood for their shafts, they still wanted the shafts to at least be heavy so it wouldn't be so obvious and so they wouldn't lose that portion of the market. The truth is that old growth tight grained wood shafts (or heavy shafts for that matter) certainly don't inherently play better than anything else. As far as their "hit" goes, "hit" is essentially just the exact type/feel of hand shock you feel in your cueing hand at the time of tip contact with the cue ball, and there is no one type of "hit" is superior to any others. It's just a personal preference type thing. There isn't even any good evidence that anybody would be able to tell the hit of an old growth tight grained shaft from a similar shaft that was using standard grained wood if they were blindfolded, but even if they could it is still just a personal preference for the type of hand shock/"hit" they want to feel in their hand.

4. Many people (like you) became convinced, wrongly, that heavier shafts "hit" better, largely because of guys you like professing such nonsense constantly, and when people hear something passed around a lot as the gospel truth they often buy into it themselves and then it continues to multiply, and now here we are with lots of people having silly beliefs. Heavier shafts do not inherently "hit" any better or play any better.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Do you really think I haven't done the homework?

Why don't you tell the forum the whole story behind the numbers above?

For everyone, those numbers are achieved by varying the butt weights along with the changing shaft weights to equal 18-20 ounces.

But what about those who don't have the luxury(or just don't want to) of changing the weight in the butt of their cue?

Shaft weight can now vary from 1.0 oz to 1.2 oz on each cue weighing 18-20 ounces & still hit the Bava mark at 18%-22%.


Tom Watters over at Recollection Cues sold 2 Tim Prince cues listed at almost $7000 with a shaft that was only get this 17%!! He has another one the same way still listed. I'm sure it won't sell because of that. Oh my gosh you had better contact both of them & set them straight!!

Now for the dim witted.

What you are saying above is just about totally wrong. Having said these methods were used way back in the day most likely because what is known now was not then.

Today it's setup, swing path & the club face relationship to that path the curves the golf ball. Ball position dictates the height of the ball flight. Firmer grip pressure may be used in deep rough in an effort to prevent the clubhead from turning over.

Stick to what you know Bava, whatever that may be.

I'm relatively sure that I will understand women and be able to talk to animals long before I understand how a person can use golf as an example as to how pool should be played.

 

[Fore Rail]

I'm relatively sure that I will understand women and be able to talk to animals long before I understand how a person can use golf as an example as to how pool should be played.

There are many parallels between the two games, but the one first presented in this thread isn't one of them.

 

[Island Drive]

Actually the math for a 18, 19 & 20 oz. cues, as examples, the shaft weight difference range is 0.75 - 0.8 ounces
for the % ratios I’ve explained. 18 oz. cue is 3.25 - 4 ozs, 19 oz. cue is 3.4 - 4.2 and 20 oz. 3.6 - 4.4 shaft weights.

Now for the dim witted, when you go above or below these weight ratios I’ve explained, you can still fall in love with
your pool cue. It is a individual decision and not fixed in stone but the best cue makers abided by this building cues.

So everyone that scorns, mocks, ridicules my posts explaining this, I again challenge you to do the homework. I have & always do when I see a for sale ad for a cue. It is ingrained in my evaluation of a pool cue. The greatest cue maker
I ever had the privilege of speaking with told me he builds his pool cues this way because this is how he was taught.

So I offered this information as a form of paying it forward so that others can contemplate this when trying different cues and perhaps wondering why they liked one cue over another or was even shopping for a pre-owned pool cue. The shaft weight ratio has a direct bearing on how the cue feels to any pool player but many players don’t consider it cuz they don’t know.

During my prime yrs of ordering & waiting for my new cues from 4 diff cue makers FOUR times .
I talked with each in length, before spinnin' em up usually took 2 yrs give/take duh .... I custom had made a S West, Joss, Zamboti, Kikel.
Giving the cuemakers my specs.
Cue makers.... always mentioned two things with blanks. Before the cut, after the cut, during the cuts/rest periods for grain release direction.
Every shaft was always a little diff weight when finished.
The grain, boy howdy, and the weight differences between the same cuts. I know when I ordered my shafts, this information at the time was important and evolving as my play improved.

 

[T411]

Life is full of hidden parallels, and the moment you only see what’s obvious or cannot see or think outside the box is the moment you limit your ingenuity - balance, rhythm, and feel matter just as much as they do in music, sports and much more. Timing, precision, and consistency, materials & more cross over in ways than what is obvious to most people. Some see beyond the surface and connect the dots and realize there’s far more in common between different parts of life than meets the eye. Always try to see more than the obvious.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

There are many parallels between the two games, but the one first presented in this thread isn't one of them.

I really don't see any parallels. The stance is different, the swing is different, the scale is slightly different, you only use one ball in golf.

I'd love to know what is similar besides a ball going into a hole, in which case it would be similar to foosball, basketball, hockey, soccer, lacrosse, pinball, ball-and-cup...

Just because it is one guy at a time hitting a ball with a stick doesn't make for any equipment or technique crossover.