odd/irregular length playing cue questions

tjlmbklr said:

I have dabled in a variety of lengths of cues over the years, 60" (30B/30S), 59" (29B/30S). It was a 30" OB-2 shaft and loved that cue so much. But then 7 years ago I went cold turkey and sold everything. Now I'm back but didn't want to search for another custom lenght cue so I settled on a standard 58" mid range McDermott with a G-Core shaft. Then a league player showed me the Balance Rite and I immediately fell in love with the lenght. I'm not the talllest person but have very long arms and am not fond of gripping right on the very end of the butt of a cue which is what I do with a 58" cue. So I had newsherriffintown make me a 3" Ebony mid cue extension similar to the Balance Rite, but much prettier. This makes my cue an odd 61" which feels right.

So with that long winded explaination I want to buy a good LD shaft and am leaning towards Meucci Pro shaft. They sell the shafts up to 31" long so all I need is a 30" butt. Or should I go the other way around and go 31" butt with a 30" shaft? I feel it will be much easier finding a 30" butt.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

TJ

Click to expand...

I would go 30" butt, 31" shaft. If money is a concern, you can get Schmelke to make you a 30" butt for a fairly low price. Just be sure to specify joint diameter, as sometimes they make odd sizes that are not compatible with the 'standard' diameters of aftermarket shafts etc.

I personally would do a 3/8" 10 pin with .850" diameter.

tjlmbklr said:

I have dabled in a variety of lengths of cues over the years, 60" (30B/30S), 59" (29B/30S). It was a 30" OB-2 shaft and loved that cue so much. But then 7 years ago I went cold turkey and sold everything. Now I'm back but didn't want to search for another custom lenght cue so I settled on a standard 58" mid range McDermott with a G-Core shaft. Then a league player showed me the Balance Rite and I immediately fell in love with the lenght. I'm not the talllest person but have very long arms and am not fond of gripping right on the very end of the butt of a cue which is what I do with a 58" cue. So I had newsherriffintown make me a 3" Ebony mid cue extension similar to the Balance Rite, but much prettier. This makes my cue an odd 61" which feels right.

So with that long winded explaination I want to buy a good LD shaft and am leaning towards Meucci Pro shaft. They sell the shafts up to 31" long so all I need is a 30" butt. Or should I go the other way around and go 31" butt with a 30" shaft? I feel it will be much easier finding a 30" butt. ( I'm 6'4" and my arms are very long but I have ALWAYS gripped the butt 2 hands behind the balance with no issues )

Thoughts?

Thanks.

TJ

Click to expand...

Just a suggestion ( and, understood, it's easier said than done when you're used to doing something a specific way, but... ) about cue length. People like cue length for differing reasons but it should *never* be because of arm length. You should *never* grip the cue at the butt end, regardless of length ( presupposing it's at least 57" ). Find the balance of the cue with your extended index finger, then grip it 2 hand widths behind the balance. This holds true regardless if your arms are short or long.

Michael Andros said:

Just a suggestion ( and, understood, it's easier said than done when you're used to doing something a specific way, but... ) about cue length. People like cue length for differing reasons but it should *never* be because of arm length. You should *never* grip the cue at the butt end, regardless of length ( presupposing it's at least 57" ). Find the balance of the cue with your extended index finger, then grip it 2 hand widths behind the balance. This holds true regardless if your arms are short or long.

Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree, but I completely disagree. :thumbup:

If you view the stance from the side. The head, the bridge hand, and the grip hand form a triangle. Depending on how low the head is (and stances have gotten lower through the years until a lot of players now have their chin on the cue), the angle at the top of the triangle is wider, causing the bottom leg of the triangle (the cue) to be longer. Factor in things like longer bridge lengths, longer arms etc, the need for a cue long enough to span the bottom leg of the triangle grows longer.

Advice about gripping at or near the balance point has been printed in almost every old pool instruction book probably going all the way back to Fred Herman. And it wasn't great advice then either.

Hope I'm explaining this clearly.

tjlmbklr said:

Good point, I should mention the 3" extension on my cue with the weight bolt removed gives my cue now the perfect balance for my grip with a total weight of like 18.75oz. This is gripping probably 4" from the butt end.

Click to expand...

Not sure how the extension would affect it, but I'm fairly sure ( logically ) the formula would remain valid: find the balance point, then 2 hands behind. Good luck with the new cue/s - shaft/s.

Chuck Fields said:

Sorry to disagree, but I completely disagree. :thumbup:

If you view the stance from the side. The head, the bridge hand, and the grip hand form a triangle. Depending on how low the head is (and stances have gotten lower through the years until a lot of players now have their chin on the cue), the angle at the top of the triangle is wider, causing the bottom leg of the triangle (the cue) to be longer. Factor in things like longer bridge lengths, longer arms etc, the need for a cue long enough to span the bottom leg of the triangle grows longer.

Advice about gripping at or near the balance point has been printed in almost every old pool instruction book probably going all the way back to Fred Herman. And it wasn't great advice then either.

Hope I'm explaining this clearly.

Click to expand...

Well I disagree with your disagree!!! ( see red/bold/italic above ) Probably good reason for that. EVERY person those kids in Blair Witch Project talked to told them "Don't go out in them woods." Did they listen? HELL no. And look what happened to THEM! **HA**

:dance: :woot: :yeah: :woot: :dance:

Are Meucci pro shafts really LD ?

Michael Andros said:

Well I disagree with your disagree!!! ( see red/bold/italic above ) Probably good reason for that. EVERY person those kids in Blair Witch Project talked to told them "Don't go out in them woods." Did they listen? HELL no. And look what happened to THEM! **HA**

:dance: :woot: :yeah: :woot: :dance:

Click to expand...

Yeah, the reason was that a shit ton of misinformation was spread for decades through a bunch of mostly ghost written books. :thumbup:

Most of the old straight pool era players stood a lot taller in their stance, and therefore gripped the cue further up the wrap towards the balance point.

None of the world class modern day players grip their cues anywhere near the balance point, for the reasons I stated above. The stance dictates where the grip hand is on the cue for the bridge length and cue length the player is using.

Chuck Fields said:

Yeah, the reason was that a shit ton of misinformation was spread for decades through a bunch of mostly ghost written books. :thumbup:

Most of the old straight pool era players stood a lot taller in their stance, and therefore gripped the cue further up the wrap towards the balance point.

None of the world class modern day players grip their cues anywhere near the balance point, for the reasons I stated above. The stance dictates where the grip hand is on the cue for the bridge length and cue length the player is using.

Click to expand...

I think Mosconi trolled us.

JoeyInCali said:

Are Meucci pro shafts really LD ?

Click to expand...

Yes they are very good shafts. I prefer the UW over the pro due to diameter. If I wasn't using the Revo I'd be surely using the Meucci shaft.

Chuck Fields said:

Yeah, the reason was that a shit ton of misinformation was spread for decades through a bunch of mostly ghost written books. :thumbup:

Most of the old straight pool era players stood a lot taller in their stance, and therefore gripped the cue further up the wrap towards the balance point.

None of the world class modern day players grip their cues anywhere near the balance point, for the reasons I stated above. The stance dictates where the grip hand is on the cue for the bridge length and cue length the player is using.

Click to expand...

Gotta call BS on that, Chuck. I just watched ( though I was fairly sure they all did, but just to make sure... ) Efren, Parica, Sigel, Mizerak, Bustamonte, Hopkins, Grady, Varner, Shane, Earl, Mika, Orculla, Ralf and Appleton and every one of them grip the butt @ 2 hands behind the balance ( which, on almost all cues, is right about where the wrap starts so, depending how big your hand is, that's about half to 2/3s the way down the wrap ).

Michael Andros said:

Gotta call BS on that, Chuck. I just watched ( though I was fairly sure they all did, but just to make sure... ) Efren, Parica, Sigel, Mizerak, Bustamonte, Hopkins, Grady, Varner, Shane, Earl, Mika, Orculla, Ralf and Appleton and every one of them grip the butt @ 2 hands behind the balance ( which, on almost all cues, is right about where the wrap starts so, depending how big your hand is, that's about half to 2/3s the way down the wrap ).

Click to expand...

The balance point of most cues today is around 2 to 3 inches above the wrap .

Sorry, they don't place their hands based on the balance point .
It has more to do with their bridge length and the arm being perpendicular to the floor upon tip contact .

JoeyInCali said:

The balance point of most cues today is around 2 to 3 inches above the wrap .

Sorry, they don't place their hands based on the balance point .
It has more to do with their bridge length and the arm being perpendicular to the floor upon tip contact .

Click to expand...

So it's a coincidence every one of those players' hands is @ 2 hands from the balance point? Got it. Thanks.

edit: So, just checked all my cues. The 73 Meucci balance point is exactly at the top of the wrap. The 2 new Meuccis are 1" above the wrap, the Joss is 1" above the wrap, the McDermott is @ 1/2 above the wrap.

tjlmbklr said:

I have to agree him, I've never completely measured my bridge length but it's somewhere around 8 to 10in, it's a little shorter than I would normally like but I've been trying to shorten it up over the years. By having a Bridge length about that long I like to grab the cue about 4in from the butt. Where that puts it in reference to the balance point, I am not sure. However with my cue setup right now being 61in it feels just right.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well, as I said in my OP to you, it's much easier said, than done, as you're comfortable doing it the way you're accustomed to. I was merely passing along something that was told to me by one of the best players on earth ( at the time ) and is being followed ( as I posted to Chuck ) by some of the, presently, greatest players on earth. It may in fact be a coincidence that all those players I watched last night on YT ( and listed here ) do precisely what that world-beater told me when I was young ( longgggg time ago , granted ), but I doubt it. I suspect they all do it because it's the correct way to hold your cue in relation to the balance point. And not because someone told them to ( though perhaps, in a few cases, someone did ), but because, again, in relation to the balance point, it the best way to hold the cue.

Again, however, I do understand what feels most comfortable has a lot of bearing on how someone holds their cue. If it works for you, that's the most important thing.

tjlmbklr said:

But do we know what the total length of all the players you spoke to or watched are playing with. Longer cue means moved balance point to fit what should be what I think all players strive to achieve and that is to have you arm point straight down when at full address.

Please know I'm not disagreeing or arguing your point. Just adding more to the equation. Look at Strickland or Van Boeing, they both okay with very long cues, but also have like 10 layers of electrical tape on their butts. Who knows how that changes the balance point.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Even though I listed Earl, I watched a match of his from MANY years ago, specifically so I could see where he gripped with a normal cue. And you're correct, with a cue as long as he's been using ( though I saw him playing earlier this year and he had a normal length cue again ), the length will dictate the grip being farther down the butt ( but, unless the cue is ridiculously longer, as with Earl, the grip point is only going to be an inch, maybe two farther down the butt, which isn't much ). And, as you said, any added weight to the cue will also change the balance dynamic. However, I wasn't referring to exceptions, but to the "norm". Some players do things TOTALLY different than 99% of every other player, such as Keith's sidearm. That doesn't make it "wrong", per se, but I think Keith would be the first to tell a young kid just learning "Don't copy my sidearm.", Or, perhaps he would... but I doubt it. Fundamentals are, to me, anyway, extremely important in this game. And where to grip the cue is one of those fundamentals. Now, that said, as we have both said and, others as well, what is most comfortable to the player is important as well. Can someone play like God on Acid with strange fundamentals? Sure... but to me, if they had correct fundamentals, they would play just that much better. And for the record, I don't view anything you've said, or Chick, or anyone else, as arguing. We are all merely discussing differing points of view based on experience, conjecture, opinion, etc, etc... which, of course, is the very nature of forums.