Rules question regarding weight of cue.

Snooker Theory · Mar 22, 2020

I like a heavy cue, generally 24-25oz.
If using an extension it would put me over the 25oz weight limit, is that breaking the rules, or since it's an extension does it not matter? Took a look at the rules but wasn't sure.
Thanks.

AtLarge · Mar 22, 2020

Snooker Theory said:
I like a heavy cue, generally 24-25oz.
If using an extension it would put me over the 25oz weight limit, is that breaking the rules, or since it's an extension does it not matter? Took a look at the rules but wasn't sure.
Thanks.

Since the cue being used to hit the cue ball is the sum of all its pieces, my view is that extensions (whether built-in or add-on) should be counted in determining whether a cue meets the 25 oz. limit. But I don't recall seeing this explicitly mentioned in WPA rules.

And I don't know why they have a maximum cue weight in the rules. How would a real heavy cue help (unless you are Paul Bunyan)? I think I'd be fine with my opponent trying to play with a 3 pound cue.

Bob Jewett · Mar 22, 2020

Snooker Theory said:
I like a heavy cue, generally 24-25oz.
If using an extension it would put me over the 25oz weight limit, is that breaking the rules, or since it's an extension does it not matter? Took a look at the rules but wasn't sure.
Thanks.

I think that a lot of the larger extensions weigh more than six ounces so they are likely to put a cue over the limit. I would rule that if you use it rarely to reach otherwise impossible to get to shots, it's OK but you should not be using it for normal shots.

The current cue specs are, in part:

17. CUE STICKS
Cue Sticks used at WPA competitions should comply with the following
during play at table:

Length of Cue: 40 inches [1.016 m] minimum / No Maximum
Weight of Cue: No minimum / 25 oz. [708.75 gm] maximum
Width of Tip: No minimum / 14mm maximum

I think there are some problems with these specs. I would prefer to see a minimum weight maybe larger than six ounces. Clearly a 1-ounce cue is not part of normal play.

Similarly, I'm not sure why there's a 25-ounce maximum since I don't see how going to even 40 is going to significantly change how the cue hits the ball compared to 20 ounces.

Also, some masse cues are larger than 14mm. I have an old book that actual recommends 16mm as standard for normal play. I think 25% larger than 13mm would not change the game insignificantly.

Consider this cue which would be permitted under current equipment specifications: a one-ounce balsa cue with a 6mm tip and 41 inches long. Perfect for delicate safeties.

Brookeland Bill · Mar 23, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
I think that a lot of the larger extensions weigh more than six ounces so they are likely to put a cue over the limit. I would rule that if you use it rarely to reach otherwise impossible to get to shots, it's OK but you should not be using it for normal shots.

The current cue specs are, in part:

17. CUE STICKS
Cue Sticks used at WPA competitions should comply with the following
during play at table:

Length of Cue: 40 inches [1.016 m] minimum / No Maximum
Weight of Cue: No minimum / 25 oz. [708.75 gm] maximum
Width of Tip: No minimum / 14mm maximum

I think there are some problems with these specs. I would prefer to see a minimum weight maybe larger than six ounces. Clearly a 1-ounce cue is not part of normal play.

Similarly, I'm not sure why there's a 25-ounce maximum since I don't see how going to even 40 is going to significantly change how the cue hits the ball compared to 20 ounces.

Also, some masse cues are larger than 14mm. I have an old book that actual recommends 16mm as standard for normal play. I think 25% larger than 13mm would not change the game insignificantly.

Consider this cue which would be permitted under current equipment specifications: a one-ounce balsa cue with a 6mm tip and 41 inches long. Perfect for delicate safeties.

According to the laws of physics a lighter cue (or baseball bat) generates a faster speed when used to strike the cue ball (baseball).

Patrick Johnson · Mar 23, 2020

Brookeland Bill said:
According to the laws of physics a lighter cue (or baseball bat) generates a faster speed when used to strike the cue ball (baseball).

Our arms can usually move a lighter cue faster, but there's a limit to that - below a certain weight the limit is in how fast our muscles can move themselves.

pj
chgo

Snooker Theory · Mar 23, 2020

Brookeland Bill said:
According to the laws of physics a lighter cue (or baseball bat) generates a faster speed when used to strike the cue ball (baseball).

Dr. Dave discussed this before, here is a link if interested.
View attachment oct15.pdf
This was also a great read, although a different sport(cricket),
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/cricket.html

I am not to concerned with the pluses and minuses so much, played with a heavy cue most my life, grew up playing on old tables with slow cloth and dead rails. Spent the last year or so trying to get accustomed to a lighter cue, just isn't for me.

25 oz, 11mm conical taper, 57inches, and forward weighted is what I prefer, probably not many like me who would enjoy those specs.

Snooker Theory · Mar 23, 2020

Appreciate everyone's input, so does anyone know if its possible to reach out to the WPA for rules clarifications, or is that a dead end, the rules doesn't seem definitive regarding my question, or maybe I am interpreting your replies incorrectly.

As always thanks for your time and assistance AZ brethren.

Cron · Mar 23, 2020

Patrick Johnson said:
Our arms can usually move a lighter cue faster, but there's a limit to that - below a certain weight the limit is in how fast our muscles can move themselves.

pj
chgo

That's the idea of a light cue, to have no feeling in it. It's a fact that the lighter it is, the more accurate it becomes, like arrows. Now whether or not you yourself can control it is another matter, but that doesn't change reality.

I currently shoot with a 14.25oz, but cannot control it (I should be on 17.5 currently). However, I wonder about the length requirements of a cue in conjunction with the weight. Not whether or not I can go under 52/54 inches or heavier than 23/24 ounces, but whether or not if someone can have 90% of the weight in only 10% of the cue. This isn't really a thing for heavy cues, but the lighter people go the more they desire the weight towards the center. Since my cue is designed to hit 17.5 with a 12" extension, displacement becomes a issue.

Here's a completely biased opinion... nobody should shoot heavier than a 18oz, nobody is that bad.

Cron · Mar 23, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
I think that a lot of the larger extensions weigh more than six ounces...

Don't bother thinking it, know it and expect no exceptions I took one of those little $30 food scales to a hall once, none of the 12"weighed less than 6.3oz. I've resorted to 3D printing my 12" extension for that exact reason.

FYI, if/when you 3D print you're extension, if you have to also print a butt extension, use PET-G or ASA. ABS, PLA, TPU all shrink just enough to let the adapter threads slip (TPU is fun if you like a dead hit, that soft stuff absorbs so much).

Bob Jewett · Mar 23, 2020

Snooker Theory said:
... does anyone know if its possible to reach out to the WPA for rules clarifications...

In theory, you are supposed to reach out to your NGO rather than the WPA.

Patrick Johnson · Mar 23, 2020

Cron said:
...the lighter it is, the more accurate it becomes, like arrows.

??

Got an explanation in mind?

pj
chgo

Bob Jewett · Mar 23, 2020

The fact that cue+extension violates the upper end of the weight range leads me to wonder what the typical low end actually is. A main factor in setting equipment specs is that they should allow current standard practice unless there is an overriding reason to limit some unwanted trend.

An example of an unwanted trend is when people were using 18" metal jump rods (about 1980?).

Does anyone have a listing of jump cue weights?

westcoast · Mar 23, 2020

Unless somebody has a scale at the tournament, how would anybody really know the weight?

Several years ago I think Earl stated his cue was something like 29 ounces when he was using the super long cue. I don't remember anybody telling him to stop using it.

Tennesseejoe · Mar 23, 2020

westcoast said:
Unless somebody has a scale at the tournament, how would anybody really know the weight?

Several years ago I think Earl stated his cue was something like 29 ounces when he was using the super long cue. I don't remember anybody telling him to stop using it.

....and who would certify the scales accuracy???

Bob Jewett · Mar 23, 2020

Brookeland Bill said:
According to the laws of physics a lighter cue (or baseball bat) generates a faster speed when used to strike the cue ball (baseball).

When thinking about "laws" like that, it is often useful to look at the extremes.

If you had a 4000 pound cue, your speed would be slower because you could not get it up to speed in the length of your arm swing (even if you could hold it up).

If you had a 0.001 ounce cue you would get very little ball speed even if your hand was moving at 100MPH because of the weight mismatch with the ball.

This too heavy/too light limit exists for all players. That means that somewhere in the middle there is a cue with the best speed for each particular player.

There is no known rule for best break stick weight. Each player has to try different weights to find out.

Cron · Mar 23, 2020

Patrick Johnson said:
??

Got an explanation in mind?

pj
chgo

Less weight like I stated isn't actually what matters, it's mass. But under this application (pool), whatever reference material you use, if you use less of it, then you have less inertia. You can of course modify a cue to have less mass and be less accurate, but you'd have to intentionally do that. The more inertia you hit something with, the more chance you give it to deviate (I'm not a physicist, but apparently there maybe exceptions). Again, arrows are typically aluminum now for this very reason. Of course you could use light as an example too (apparently light has about a 50% physical part to it). Firearms also fit in this category, along with CNC machines and paint brushes.

Bob Jewett · Mar 23, 2020

Tennesseejoe said:
....and who would certify the scales accuracy???

Normally that is done by calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), but in a case like that it's whatever the TD says.

Bob <-- who used to use instruments with NIST-traceable calibration every day

Cron · Mar 23, 2020

Bob Jewett said:
If you had a 0.001 ounce cue you would get very little ball speed even if your hand was moving at 100MPH because of the weight mismatch with the ball.

Your equating weight to force, it doesn't work like that. Sound, or any disruption of air, which has less weight than that, can cause a force great enough to knock the ball off the table.

Bob Jewett · Mar 23, 2020

Cron said:
Less weight like I stated isn't actually what matters, it's mass. ...

For all practical pool purposes, the weight of an object and its mass are identical. They are the same thing.

Bavafongoul · Mar 23, 2020

It is as plain as the nose on your face.

25 ounces maximum......not 25.5 ozs or 26, nor 27 ozs or
any assembled cue weighing more than 708.7375 grams.

1 ounce = 28.3495 grams x 25 and not a single gram more.

Rules question regarding weight of cue.

AzB Silver Member

AzB Gold Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

Fish of the Day

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member