Balance Point Differences

[HawaiianEye]

I was sitting around today and did something I've been meaning to do for a while, but never got around to it. I wanted to see the difference and compare the balance points on a few of my cues that I play with.

The two on the bottom are McDermotts of different weights, different woods, and joint sizes and diameters (a C-14 and a RS-11). One is over 35 years old and the other is over 20). The balance points on these cues came out almost identical.

The Titlist cue on top is over 40-something years old and it is full-spliced and shows the balance point with a new 14mm shaft attached. It moves a bit back down when I put the original shafts on it, which are a bit less than 13mm, but have steel collars.

The second cue from the top is a Hall of Fame cue made by Adam Japan and it has the same balance point as the third cue which is a full-splice Titlist that is over 60 years old.

All of the cues are almost identical in butt length and the shaft lengths may vary just a little bit. Some of the shafts are a bit longer than the others, but no more than an inch at the very most.

What does all of this mean, besides I have too much time on my hands?

It means that when using all of the different cues, you have to change something in your stroke length or bridge length in order for them all to feel the same balance in your hands.

When I consistently play with the same cue, I know immediately where on the shaft I need to put my bridge hand and my grip hand on the cue to feel the exact balance before I even pick up the cue.

When I switch cues, it takes my mind and body a while to get back into tune for that particular cue.

That is why I recommend that people find a cue that they like and get used to it instead of changing cues all the time. Once you know your cue and yourself, you will play much better. It usually isn't the cue's fault.

 

[Kimmo H.]

Beautiful cues you got there Especially the second from the top is gorgeous it is like the perfect example of a traditional high end cue.

Thanks for sharing your results. May I ask wich cue is your main player or do you change around often?

 

[HawaiianEye]

Beautiful cues you got there Especially the second from the top is gorgeous it is like the perfect example of a traditional high end cue.

Thanks for sharing your results. May I ask wich cue is your main player or do you change around often?

My usual player is the middle cue. I use it with a custom Predator 314-2 FAT shaft that I had made for it when I got the cue converted from a one-piece Titlist house cue.

I just got the top cue back from refinishing and I plan to play with it more often, now that I got a new shaft made for it when it was refinished. I will have to get reaccustomed to playing back with a regular shaft after the Predator. The new shaft is what I call my "Elephant Gun"...I had it made at 14mm.

The second cue from the top and the one I play with have the exact same size joints and balance point, so switching between the two is kind of easy because I can use the same shafts with either cue. The hit is a bit different though because it isn't full-spliced like the Titlist. One isn't necessarily a better hit, they are just different until you get used to one. I haven't played with it very much because it's too nice and shiny.

The one I play with is over 60 years old. like me, so I don't mind if it isn't as new looking and shiny as the rest.

The ages of the cues, from top to bottom:

1) I had it made in 1973, so it is at least 43 years old. I don't know how old the Titlist blank that was used to make it. The blank may be over 50 years, or more, old.
2) I bought it new a few years ago and it was made in Japan, by Adam (the same company that makes Mezz). I don't know exactly the year this individual cue was made so I'd say it is no more than 10 years old.
3) I had this cue made by Mike Pancerny in 2012. It was made from a one-piece Titlist house cue that I bought. The house cue was made in the 50s or earlier. This cue is over 60 years old.
4) I bought this cue new in 1985. It was from the 1980-84 C-line by McDermott. When the D-line came out in 1985, I got this cue at a steal, so I couldn't pass it up. I was going to buy it and resell it, but it played so well I kept it and sold my cue that I had Richard Black custom make for me in 1981. This was my main player until I got the Pancerny cue. It is around 35 years old.
5) I got this cue from C. J. Wiley. It was made around 1996 and C. J. used it to beat Earl Strickland in the finals of "Million Dollar Challenge" Tournament in Dallas in 1996. It is 20 years old.

The cue you like is the youngster of the bunch.

I had 3) patterned after the bottom cue in this picture. It is an original George Balabushka converted Titlist. The only difference was that I added silver rings in the black joint collars. My cue is on top.

 

[bdorman]

What does all of this mean?

It means you have too many cues.

Send a few of them to me.

You can thank me later.

 

[Sealegs50]

I always thought that my preferences were focused on weight and balance (19-20 oz. and 19.3-20.3”). Not all cues with those dimensions are great for me, but nearly all of the cues I have kept and prefer for play have been within those specs.

While I prefer those specs, there is one cue that I have kept for 20+ years that is quite different (18.5 oz., balance 17.1”), which is a Meucci sneaky pete. After I retired and had too much time on my hands, I documented the specs for all of my cues in more detail. I had always believed that older Meucci shafts were 12.75 mm, long pro tapers. I was surprised to find that my S/P shaft had the same dimensions as my favorite shafts (13.1 mm @ ferrule/shaft interface, 13.5 mm @ 6”).

Interesting that I gravitated to certain preferences over time and that I didn’t just keep cues because of the names of the cuemakers. I would say that my preferences for playing cues are (in order): hard tips, stiff shafts, forward balance, and then overall weight.