middleofnowhere
Registered
All you really need is the Mezz bumper made for an extension. Once you have that any cuemaker or half assed cue repairman can make a simple extension.
Bridge length, has something changed?
- Thread starter middleofnowhere
- Start date
Why are you assuming that because there are differences, that the current choices “don’t matter”? Information evolves. Activities evolve. Equipment evolves. There are some things done differently in the modern game. The details of how they are done matter as much as they ever did. Understanding and knowledge of individuals do not always keep pace with the evolutions that occur on the whole.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
middleofnowhere
Registered
That was just a word salad you didn't say anything.
Last edited:
I blame the longer bridge lengths on the popularity of Diamond bar tables. Players typically get lazy on bar tables and prefer to bridge off the rail on most shots (for comfort) which leads to longer than normal bridge lengths.
Valley bar tables are small too but its tougher to bridge off the rail due to the uneven pocket castings and coin holders. The tops of the Diamond tables are nice and smooth/flush making it possible to bridge off the rail more often.
Since ball pocketing is easier on bar tables, players can get away with poor fundamentals, such as the longer bridge length. Plus, it just looks cool lol
I can’t understand my words for you. I said precisely what I intended to say. You apparently didn’t understand it. You seem to not understand modern equipment either.
I use a long bridge. I use a mid extension full time. I am extremely sensitive to the weight and balance of my cue.
My comment said that not everyone keeps pace with the evolution of knowledge in the activity of their choice. It would seem I’m talking about you. This means that things appear “meaningless” to you not because they are meaningless, but because you do not recognize the meaning.
If you don’t understand *that*, then this is getting a bit comical.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
middleofnowhere
Registered
Modern equipment as compared to what? Nothing about today's equipment is that much different from equipment 40 50 years ago. My original post was an obversion you seem to have taken personally. Kind of weird.
Which answer do you like so far ?
The equipment today is not much different than in the 80's ?
middleofnowhere
Registered
In general the table speed is always mentioned. Fast cloth has been around for a long time. I was installing Simonis on tables in rooms I owned decades ago.
The balls are essentially the same, chalk about the same. Layered tips are kind of new, that's something. Bob Meucci was talking deflection in the 70s.
Players making their cues like 65 or 70 inches long is different. They leave extensions on for the occasional shot they may have to reach. That's kind of strange.
Anyway my first post was an obversion and I asked what had changed. Actually, nothing other then a choice by some players that has started a fad. Not because of some need.
In other words, it is not a result of nessessity. Give SVB a 1970s Gina and he will be at no disadvantage.
Last edited:
Yes, the baselines were always based around what a typical cue's natural pivot point was. Now, with LD technology and with the pivot point being pushed backward, so has the bridge point. This also pushes back where the cue is gripped. Hence, extensions and or people gripping closer to the end of the butt.
So, the short answer to your question is, "Yes, the standards have changed with the equipment"; however, that is an over-generalization because many people still play with traditional equipment, so traditional standards do also still apply to them.
So the longer answer is, since technology and the availability of knowledge of the game has changed, the standards have widened and become more equipment specific.
Jaden
p.s. Show me a feel player that plays decent and can regularly successfully use sidespin and I can tell you whether they use LD tech or not based on watching where they bridge. Feel players will naturally shift their bridge to the cue's natural pivot point usually.
Last edited:
People discover what works best for them by innovation or imitation. Someone innovated and found the long cue worked for them. Others tried it and found it worked for them also and kept doing it, others tried and gave it up. Same with a longer average bridge length.
I don’t know if anyone else ever tried shooting glasses and weights etc but if they did they probably did so in secret just to make sure it didn’t work for them.
Things get tried and if they work they stick around, and eventually become the norm or fade away depending. Plus everything is constantly evolving and changing, even humans. It could be a mixture of global temperature and humidity, ball/shaft/cue/cloth/table/tip/chalk manufacturing practices and materials, societal norms and pressure, 4th or 5th generation cue sport players with gene adaptations etc etc etc...all contributing to the seemingly innocuous lengthening of a cue bridge.
I don’t know if anyone else ever tried shooting glasses and weights etc but if they did they probably did so in secret just to make sure it didn’t work for them.
Things get tried and if they work they stick around, and eventually become the norm or fade away depending. Plus everything is constantly evolving and changing, even humans. It could be a mixture of global temperature and humidity, ball/shaft/cue/cloth/table/tip/chalk manufacturing practices and materials, societal norms and pressure, 4th or 5th generation cue sport players with gene adaptations etc etc etc...all contributing to the seemingly innocuous lengthening of a cue bridge.
Again you have misperceived the situation. Your observation had zero personal issues for me. I’m trying to explain to you that there are some things that have changed. You seem to not recognize that indeed shaft technology has changed. The change specifically centers around low deflection. Low deflection is essentially a math function of pivot point length. This alters bridge length. The answers are here. You asked some questions, and when confronted with the answers, you seem to ignore them.
Not sure what else to tell you.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
These are excellent questions. I will answer them when I get home later if someone else hasn’t.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
I don’t remember all the details but...
Probably a horrendous explanation so here’s a link from my favorite doctor- https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/natural-pivot-length/
Probably a horrendous explanation so here’s a link from my favorite doctor- https://billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/natural-pivot-length/
middleofnowhere
Registered
If you watch this video you will see him reffering to a 19 bridge length. On follow through this would put your bridge hand almost at the joint. When I asked what has changed, it is the cues.
I play with a maple shaft with a taper that is .002" per inch for 12 inches and then increased from there. From what I am reading the new CF shafts are basically a cylinder for quite a length.
Players with CF shafts can use a very long bridge and the feel does not change much. My maple shaft if I tried a 19 bridge (or most maple shafts for that matter) the cue at that point is quite thick.
I guess in can conclude these long bridges comes from the long cylindrical shafts. I had this conversation with Scruggs years ago. He said with the popularity of the Meucci long taper he was getting customers asking for Meucci tapers.
In fact he had changed the taper on all his shafts a little to meet the new trend for longer tapers. So to answer my own original question, yes things are changing in some cases in terms of the cues. As new players start off with these changes they will, or may already have, become the norm.
Natural Pivot Length - Billiards and Pool Principles, Techniques, Resources
Answers to frequently-asked questions about a pool cue's natural pivot length.
billiards.colostate.edu
Last edited:
skiergd011013
Well-known member
Jeremy jones recommends 6-8 inches
Just reread this post and to clear up any ambiguity; long bridge, short stroke.
Correct about the knuckles. Didn't used to be an issue with the old garde straight poolers. High stance, shot selection prioritized for reliable continuity etc...
Last edited:
Check out vids of Buddy Hall. I doubt you'll find anyone with a shorter bridge.
While the post is a few years old, I have been teaching some players recently that joined the league I am in, and many of them have very long bridges. The reason I don't like them, especially in newer players, is that due to physics and the way a fulcrum works. If you hold the shaft further from the tip, any extra motion in the stroke is amplified in the tip motion, the further back your bridge is on the shaft the more the tip will move. If you slide the bridge forward a few inches, and you move your back hand, the tip moves a lot less. For those new to playing, or even those that played for years but tend to move the back arm during the stroke, the shorter your bridge, the less your tip moves off the line of aiming, thus you gain accuracy of the hit. It's a good way to reduce variables in the stoke and fundamentals to maximize the chances of a good hit.