When used on 6'-7' tables, will the use of a 48" cue have a noticeably deleterious effect on one's game? Can you use the same stroke and other fundamentals with a 48" cue? Obviously something has to change, having 9"-10" less cue will affect the geometry of your body, arms, etc.
48" cues for small or crowded rooms
- Thread starter derangedhermit
- Start date
Thanks for the answer, Keane. I was asking about short cues because using smaller tables put closer together, although unattractive to the players, may help rooms be profitable. Shorter cues would help with the crowding problem, like they do in home rooms.
Your post reminds me: I gave a decent 48" (or thereabouts) cue to a friend several years ago for his son to learn to play with. I'll see if he still has it and I can borrow it to try it out. I agree with your comment about getting the weight distributed as well as possible.
Your post reminds me: I gave a decent 48" (or thereabouts) cue to a friend several years ago for his son to learn to play with. I'll see if he still has it and I can borrow it to try it out. I agree with your comment about getting the weight distributed as well as possible.
Shorties
Yes, 48 is really short. I have a GC 8ft. Pro and it requires a shorty when cue is on the rail. A nine ft. Would never have fit but I always loved eight footers. I had a local new cue maker make me a 52 in. cue. Big difference in the extra four inches. I really don't use it that much. Playing to the center of table and avoiding being stuck on rail is always good anyway.
Yes, 48 is really short. I have a GC 8ft. Pro and it requires a shorty when cue is on the rail. A nine ft. Would never have fit but I always loved eight footers. I had a local new cue maker make me a 52 in. cue. Big difference in the extra four inches. I really don't use it that much. Playing to the center of table and avoiding being stuck on rail is always good anyway.
I think it's probably unfair to ask players to pay for pool and then expect them to be willing to shoot with a shorter cue. As far as putting tables closer together, I've seen many pool rooms put tables closer together thinking that they would make more money in the long run and it had the opposite effect. People don't enjoy bumping into each other. Eventually they stop coming.
I think Fran is spot on... The first time I came to a room that required me to shoot with a shorty would be the last time I walked thru their doors.....
If I recall correctly, the WPA/BCA tournament minimum is 6 feet between tables. I haven't been to a room in a while that has 6' between tables. 4' to 5' is what I see.
7' tables spaced 5' apart use 102 sq.ft. each. 6' tables spaced 4' apart use 70 sq.ft. per table.
I would be willing to play with 54" cues on 6' tables spaced 4.5 feet apart, if the industry made an effort to keep the flavor of play similar, by making proportionally smaller balls and pockets, and letting players add more weight right at the butt to be able to get that balance if they so chose. That's probably about my limit. A local room has plenty of 6' barboxes. I could give them a try, checking how crowded they are and what it's like to play on them. (I play mostly on 9' tables now).
Smaller tables might even the field some between men and women. A woman, maybe 5'4", seems to have to deal with reach as an issue as much on 8' tables as I do on 9 footers. I guess on a 6' table, reaching most shots is not a problem for most people.
I am just trying to think of how pool could be more financially competitive as a recreation business opportunity.
