Cue construction

Yep, you did, and a worthless and wrong opinion at that. You might as well have kept it to yourself.

Why would the guy asking the questions argue? He is the one seeking knowledge. If someone like you gives a flip answer that is also incorrect how should he know that it is incorrect?

Do you know more about cue making than Kaz Miki does?

Hits em soft..

Where exactly was I an asshole here?

Your first reply wasn't. When you flat out told someone their personal opinion was wrong, that's when you went asshole mode. You want to say that Mezz cues are made better, sure from an engineering viewpoint sure. But from a playability viewpoint, we'll see in another 20 years if Mezz can be mentioned in the same breathe as Joey did. We know that those 80's Schon's don't have problems staying together, so they must be engineered well enough. But that still doesn't answer the question asked. Are they better? Flat out unbiased opinion, no. What's better, when comparing two items that don't have problems is ridiculous. It's like asking what tire is better for my car, Goodyear or Firestone. Neither side is going to rationally debate as both sides are a quality product.

You, Mr. John Barton made an argument over nothing. You attempted to devalue your opponents remarks with degrading remarks that have nothing to do with this conversation. Joey flat out stated that his words were his opinion, and not facts. You twisted everyone's words until you were 'right'. I'd recomend that the first thing you do when you move back to the USA is enroll into a university and take some philosophy classes. You will be humbled by how poorly you argue with people.
 
Your first reply wasn't. When you flat out told someone their personal opinion was wrong, that's when you went asshole mode. You want to say that Mezz cues are made better, sure from an engineering viewpoint sure. But from a playability viewpoint, we'll see in another 20 years if Mezz can be mentioned in the same breathe as Joey did. We know that those 80's Schon's don't have problems staying together, so they must be engineered well enough. But that still doesn't answer the question asked. Are they better? Flat out unbiased opinion, no. What's better, when comparing two items that don't have problems is ridiculous. It's like asking what tire is better for my car, Goodyear or Firestone. Neither side is going to rationally debate as both sides are a quality product.

You, Mr. John Barton made an argument over nothing. You attempted to devalue your opponents remarks with degrading remarks that have nothing to do with this conversation. Joey flat out stated that his words were his opinion, and not facts. You twisted everyone's words until you were 'right'. I'd recomend that the first thing you do when you move back to the USA is enroll into a university and take some philosophy classes. You will be humbled by how poorly you argue with people.
I suggest you read the thread again. carefully.

And also I don't see you in the Meucci thread defending my right to an opinion.

Why not? I thought you would jump right and chastise anyone who said I was wrong or whom disagreed with my opinion.

Is my opinion not worth your justice?
 
easiier to make good cues or junk

Today it is much easier to make cues in volume than it has been in the past. It is easier to produce quality cues, it is easier to produce junk cues too.

The junk looks beautimus all together with the original shaft. Trying to fit a second shaft you learn that the pin is off center and the whole thing final turned as one so that doesn't seem to matter, unless you face the joint or try to turn another shaft for the cue. It doesn't matter that the face isn't square with the original shaft either, another wonder of turning them together.

Some inserts are installed by just boring an oversized hole and screwing in the insert barely scratching the wood without threading the shaft, saves a step, saves machinery, saves time, saves money. Produces crap. The modern glue or adhesive holds things together, sometimes, for awhile.

The pin in some of these cues isn't a pin, it is a piece of threaded stock with an inch or less of threads in the butt of the cue. That gives them a lot more "pins" from one ten or twelve foot length of all thread, saving pennies per cue. Hurts quality but it looks just fine sitting on shelf.

There are dozens of other ways to cut costs, including purchase and storage of adhesives and finishes, lower quality components, lower grade materials, none of these things show to the naked eye looking at a new cue. Some bite the buyer in the butt rapidly, some take awhile. The person that has a home table they rarely use may never have an issue with one of these cues.

While a production cue may have been made at labor costs of only $.60 to $1.35 an hour in some third world or emerging country it generally passes through many more middle men than a custom cue. The last person marking up the cue may be marking it up ten or twenty times what the real manufacturer made off of the cue. The cue hasn't gained value passing through all of these hands, just a higher price.

Some of the cues, including some with a good reputation on this forum, are like sausage. Better to enjoy and not know how they are made!

Hu
 
Today it is much easier to make cues in volume than it has been in the past. It is easier to produce quality cues, it is easier to produce junk cues too.

The junk looks beautimus all together with the original shaft. Trying to fit a second shaft you learn that the pin is off center and the whole thing final turned as one so that doesn't seem to matter, unless you face the joint or try to turn another shaft for the cue. It doesn't matter that the face isn't square with the original shaft either, another wonder of turning them together.

Some inserts are installed by just boring an oversized hole and screwing in the insert barely scratching the wood without threading the shaft, saves a step, saves machinery, saves time, saves money. Produces crap. The modern glue or adhesive holds things together, sometimes, for awhile.

The pin in some of these cues isn't a pin, it is a piece of threaded stock with an inch or less of threads in the butt of the cue. That gives them a lot more "pins" from one ten or twelve foot length of all thread, saving pennies per cue. Hurts quality but it looks just fine sitting on shelf.

There are dozens of other ways to cut costs, including purchase and storage of adhesives and finishes, lower quality components, lower grade materials, none of these things show to the naked eye looking at a new cue. Some bite the buyer in the butt rapidly, some take awhile. The person that has a home table they rarely use may never have an issue with one of these cues.

While a production cue may have been made at labor costs of only $.60 to $1.35 an hour in some third world or emerging country it generally passes through many more middle men than a custom cue. The last person marking up the cue may be marking it up ten or twenty times what the real manufacturer made off of the cue. The cue hasn't gained value passing through all of these hands, just a higher price.

Some of the cues, including some with a good reputation on this forum, are like sausage. Better to enjoy and not know how they are made!

Hu

Actually it is much harder to make junk cues these days because of the abundance of good competition. And that is competition around the world. There are many decent cue makers in Asia competing with each other now and not just in production cues.

The market won't easily accept "junk" cues as it did 25 years ago. Buyers are more savvy and the sellers have to offer a better level of quality.

As I previously mentioned several times in this thread, I have been on the front lines with cues from cheap to high end for 25 years. My travels have brought me through the workshops of high end makers and the factories of high volume makers.

An interesting story that dovetails with this topic perfectly comes out of my visit to Joey Gold's shop.

I asked Joey point blank why McDermott for example couldn't build a cue just like his?

Joey said that they probably could IF they knew some of the methods he used but that they probably wouldn't be able to reverse engineer those methods just by examination alone. He then went on to give us examples of what he meant as he went through the shop.

I came away with the conclusion that he was likely right.

But I also know from my time in the factory that if a factory team is dedicated enough they will figure out how to get the cue as close to the look and hit as is humanly possible without getting direct instruction from the original maker.

Fury for example has such a team dedicated to building cues, they have hundreds (probably thousands) of prototypes where the models were tweaked with different iterations. I know for example that they tried out many different materials for the core and handed the numbered prototypes to professionals like Kelly Fisher to get their raw feedback without telling them how the cues were built.

I know because several times I was present for an entire afternoon of such testing.

And the trickle down is that other factories in China for example have to build to compete with the Fury and Universal/Lucasi standard just to get any business. No longer is the lowest quality of the 90s acceptable.

In my opinion...a production cue out of China now has to be built AT LEAST to the standard of a 90s McDermott to have any chance in the market.

In China the house cues are all two piece cues. They actually hold up pretty well considering the abuse they get. Cuesight sells a plain cue for $50 that is decent enough to play great pool with.

To be sure there are low quality cues that are built to much looser tolerances on purpose to satisfy the demand for very low priced cues. But since one of the questions was are cues better now than 25 years ago the answer is unquestionably yes.

Does that mean that there is any cue built today which can be be said to be better built than a 1990 Szamboti? Maybe not. But Szamboti represent the high end of the quality spectrum where fit and finish have always been built to stand the test of time. However there are a lot of cues that are much closer to Szambotis' end of the spectrum now than there were 25 years ago.

Another way to look at it is that very few China/Taiwan cues made in 1991 have likely survived intact and usable to 2014. But in 2035 there will be a lot of the China and Taiwan made cues that have survived intact and usable just as there are many Mcdermotts, Vikings, Hueblers, Pechauers, etc.... that were made in 1991 and which survive today.
 
Your first reply wasn't. When you flat out told someone their personal opinion was wrong, that's when you went asshole mode. You want to say that Mezz cues are made better, sure from an engineering viewpoint sure. But from a playability viewpoint, we'll see in another 20 years if Mezz can be mentioned in the same breathe as Joey did. We know that those 80's Schon's don't have problems staying together, so they must be engineered well enough. But that still doesn't answer the question asked. Are they better? Flat out unbiased opinion, no. What's better, when comparing two items that don't have problems is ridiculous. It's like asking what tire is better for my car, Goodyear or Firestone. Neither side is going to rationally debate as both sides are a quality product.

You, Mr. John Barton made an argument over nothing. You attempted to devalue your opponents remarks with degrading remarks that have nothing to do with this conversation. Joey flat out stated that his words were his opinion, and not facts. You twisted everyone's words until you were 'right'. I'd recomend that the first thing you do when you move back to the USA is enroll into a university and take some philosophy classes. You will be humbled by how poorly you argue with people.

My friend, you really should back off. First I never said that Mezz cues are made better than 80s Adam cues. I said that I am SURE that Kaz Miki, THE OWNER of Mezz cues would feel that way and be willing to prove it. That was in response to Joey's "opinion" that NO 'production' CUE made today is as good as the 80s Adam cues. Just so happens that Mezz (the Miki Corp.) made the 80s Adam cues which is why I used them as an example.

No where did I say that 80s Schon or Adam cues are bad or even worse than any other cue made. I simply said that the cue makers certainly don't feel that their current work is inferior to the work done 25 years ago.

And who would be in a better position to judge that? You, the player who doesn't make cues? Me, the player and dealer who doesn't make cues? Or, the player and cue maker who knows the build of cues from the inside out?

You know who else mills their own wood besides Eric Crisp?

Pechauer.

"In 1993, through a state and local development loan, Jerry and Joe completed a new atmosphere controlled state of the art facility which included a sawmill and vacuum kiln to cut and dry their own wood. Jerry then took a course in grading and scaling logs from a Forester at Michigan Tech and started purchasing quality Bird’s-eye Maple and Curly Maple for the butts of the cues. Having the availability of hand-picked maple and the means to cut it allowed them to sell shaft wood to other cue makers as well including Jim McDermott who came to Jerry for a stable source of shaft dowels." - Pechauer cues website. (I bought two containers' worth of dowels from Jerry)

Do you think that this man wants to hear to Joey Bautista's "opinion" that he can't build a cue that plays as good as a Schon from the 80s? And just what is the implication there if someone says a cue doesn't "play" as well as another cue? To me it's partly saying that the cue is not as well built.

Just because a person states that he is expressing an opinion does not make that opinion unquestionable. Nor does it make the premise expressed correct.

Saying that an opinion cannot be questioned or challenged is simply childish ignorance.

You seem to be saying that using "IMO" protects the thought expressed from challenge. Makes it immune to dissent and comment. I don't know how you could possibly consider that to be right and presume to lecture me on that premise.

Especially considering that my opinion of Joey's opinion is an opinion and as such according to you immune from comment. Thus good sir you have defeated yourself and I suggest highly that you take your own advice and learn how to argue before presuming to judge others. All in my opinion of course.
 
Last edited:
Technology has advanced a lot, but that doesn't mean a better cue in my view. I have a cue I played with back in the 60's and it hits just as good as any recent cue I've played with, though it is an inch or two shorter than todays cues.
 
Technology has advanced a lot, but that doesn't mean a better cue in my view. I have a cue I played with back in the 60's and it hits just as good as any recent cue I've played with, though it is an inch or two shorter than todays cues.

A very well respected cuemaker is going to make me a cue that is significantly shorter than todays cues when my name is up on his list.

I got antsy and had Keith Hanssen (who makes unbelievable playing cues) make a sneaky pete similar size, and I absolutely love it when I get to play on barboxes with it.

54" just doesn't work on the 9 foot or 10 foot as well though.



But on topic, I think that maybe some people here are just nostalgic as they got used to what they grew up with. When things changed, even if they got "better" - it wasn't the same. It wasn't as good because it wasn't the "old stuff" or the way it used to be.

Sometimes people just don't like change so much they hate the idea of it and everything about it without giving it a chance.


I don't see how there's even a debate to whether or not *overall* construction today could be worse than 30 years ago.

As technology and adhesives got better in other markets it came into cuemaking.

And as John says, with all of the social media/reviewing on the internet how could many get away with producing shit cues and still sell them?


Look at Dale Perrys reputation nowadays among the collectors? Look at what Eddie Wheats cues go for.



Do newer cues play better than older cues though? Well, you can't really answer something as subjective as the word play definitively IMO...

But my opinion really doesn't mean anything :thumbup:
 
tell us

Actually it is much harder to make junk cues these days because of the abundance of good competition. And that is competition around the world. There are many decent cue makers in Asia competing with each other now and not just in production cues.

The market won't easily accept "junk" cues as it did 25 years ago. Buyers are more savvy and the sellers have to offer a better level of quality.

As I previously mentioned several times in this thread, I have been on the front lines with cues from cheap to high end for 25 years. My travels have brought me through the workshops of high end makers and the factories of high volume makers.

An interesting story that dovetails with this topic perfectly comes out of my visit to Joey Gold's shop.

I asked Joey point blank why McDermott for example couldn't build a cue just like his?

Joey said that they probably could IF they knew some of the methods he used but that they probably wouldn't be able to reverse engineer those methods just by examination alone. He then went on to give us examples of what he meant as he went through the shop.

I came away with the conclusion that he was likely right.

But I also know from my time in the factory that if a factory team is dedicated enough they will figure out how to get the cue as close to the look and hit as is humanly possible without getting direct instruction from the original maker.

Fury for example has such a team dedicated to building cues, they have hundreds (probably thousands) of prototypes where the models were tweaked with different iterations. I know for example that they tried out many different materials for the core and handed the numbered prototypes to professionals like Kelly Fisher to get their raw feedback without telling them how the cues were built.

I know because several times I was present for an entire afternoon of such testing.

And the trickle down is that other factories in China for example have to build to compete with the Fury and Universal/Lucasi standard just to get any business. No longer is the lowest quality of the 90s acceptable.

In my opinion...a production cue out of China now has to be built AT LEAST to the standard of a 90s McDermott to have any chance in the market.

In China the house cues are all two piece cues. They actually hold up pretty well considering the abuse they get. Cuesight sells a plain cue for $50 that is decent enough to play great pool with.

To be sure there are low quality cues that are built to much looser tolerances on purpose to satisfy the demand for very low priced cues. But since one of the questions was are cues better now than 25 years ago the answer is unquestionably yes.

Does that mean that there is any cue built today which can be be said to be better built than a 1990 Szamboti? Maybe not. But Szamboti represent the high end of the quality spectrum where fit and finish have always been built to stand the test of time. However there are a lot of cues that are much closer to Szambotis' end of the spectrum now than there were 25 years ago.

Another way to look at it is that very few China/Taiwan cues made in 1991 have likely survived intact and usable to 2014. But in 2035 there will be a lot of the China and Taiwan made cues that have survived intact and usable just as there are many Mcdermotts, Vikings, Hueblers, Pechauers, etc.... that were made in 1991 and which survive today.



john,

The cues all look the same on the outside, or nearly the same to an unsophisticated buyer looking to buy a cue under $200. The junk sells for the same price as some pretty decent cues. Some of the junk has as good or better reputation on AZB as far better cues. The competition only makes them keep up appearances. Surely in all your bisecting of cues you have found the same things I am talking about. This wasn't twenty-five year old cues.

Gold's words are gold. A lot goes into a top quality cue that will never be done on a production floor. Partially impossible to keep people that interested in a mass production environment. Partially the "good enough" attitude in production. When a production item is "good enough" then they start focusing on how to make it faster and cheaper without decreasing quality to the point it is no longer good enough. The pursuit of perfection doesn't exist on a production floor.

Hu
 
john,

The cues all look the same on the outside, or nearly the same to an unsophisticated buyer looking to buy a cue under $200. The junk sells for the same price as some pretty decent cues. Some of the junk has as good or better reputation on AZB as far better cues. The competition only makes them keep up appearances. Surely in all your bisecting of cues you have found the same things I am talking about. This wasn't twenty-five year old cues.

Gold's words are gold. A lot goes into a top quality cue that will never be done on a production floor. Partially impossible to keep people that interested in a mass production environment. Partially the "good enough" attitude in production. When a production item is "good enough" then they start focusing on how to make it faster and cheaper without decreasing quality to the point it is no longer good enough. The pursuit of perfection doesn't exist on a production floor.

Hu

Of course you can't tell how a cue is internally constructed, for the most part, by looking at the exterior. The same applies to almost everything Hu, even people.

Yes, I agree that some cues are internally shitty. I said that in my first three posts.

I understand your comments but they simply are not true. You simply don't know what goes on in a cue factory. You don't. You make general statements about manufacturing which also are not true and try to apply them to cue manufacturing.

Your premise seems to be that because a cue is built in a small shop and presumably "custom" (because not all cues built in small shops are custom) then it's automatically going to be better than a production cue.

That's simply not true. It could actually never be true given the broad diversity in training, methods, supplies, woods, ability, machine tolerances, etc....that exist in cue making.

The fact is that a state of the art cue making operation can do precision work to tight tolerances and do it repeatedly. A cue factory can and does invest in specially built machines to do specific tasks over and over.

Cue factories can invest in better CNC lathes, they can automate just about every process to whatever tolerance they need.

They can do everything that a small cue maker can do and do it at scale. Does that mean every cue will be a perfect specimen? Of course not.

But we are talking a general curve here and that curve is upwards from 1991 in terms of overall quality. In other words the "bad" cues from China today are better than the best cues coming from Taiwan in 1991.

And good enough is not up to the factory, it's up to the customer. Be that customer the wholesale buyer or the end user. Ultimately the customer decides if the cues are good enough to continue buying and using.

This is why Meucci went through a period where dealers abandoned them. They didn't keep the quality at a level that was acceptable to the market.

You keep saying that there is junk that sells for hundreds of dollars, so what if there is? There was junk made in the USA by a few well known names that also sold for hundreds and even thousands of dollars. This is a very broad industry when it comes to cues with 700+ active cuemakers worldwide and dozens of factories with well over a 1000 brands. Of course there will be crap that is being sold for far more than it's worth when you have that much product on the market.

The point you don't seem to want to accept is that the OVERALL quality of cues is higher now than it ever has been.

For an example look at lifetime warranties. No one in 1991 offered a lifetime warranty on a pool cue. Nope, you bought it and it's your problem if it warps in three weeks.

Now many companies offer lifetime warranties on their cues. Because they know that they build cues good enough that the chances of warpage are fairly low and thus they plan for an acceptable amount of claims. No way that any cue maker or distributor would have offered that in 1991 unless their profit margins were insanely high to absorb the claims. But in fact as far as I know no one offered a lifetime warranty in 1991 or the decade that that followed it.

You can argue that a lifetime warranty is a marketing gimmick and to a degree they are. But any company that offers them has to be confident that they aren't going to face massive claims that eat up the profits.

They have to know for example that the rate of warpage in their cues is likely to be kept under 2% even under adverse conditions in order to offer such a warranty.

Now, back to the factory setting. If you were to have gone into Tim Scruggs' shop you would have seen hundreds of shafts hanging in various stages of turning. They would have been marked and graded and and dated.

If you go into Kao Kao's wood warehouse now you will see hundreds of thousands of shafts hanging on custom built racks floor to ceiling about 20ft high. They are all marked and graded and dated. Kao Kao in 2005 undertook a multi-million dollar renovation to essentially become a factory sized version of Tim Scruggs' shop. In essence they have duplicated the processes of small cue makers and scaled them up to factory proportions.

Putting this into perspective, 30 years ago they would use techniques from the furniture industry as the first cue makers in Taiwan were orginally furniture makers. They would go from a square to a 1.25" dowel in one pass then taper it in the next machine in a matter of minutes. Used to making big thick furniture they had no idea how wood would react when cut to such thin pieces so quickly.

Now they basically lay in wood and process it pretty much the same as good small cue makers do it. Small cut by small cut letting the wood season and stabilize. This is a much more expensive way to make cues when you figure the amount of wood they have to keep in the pipeline but they offset it by investing in a LOT of CNC processes to do the precision cutting.

I have seen this transformation first hand. This is where my perspective comes from.

I have also seen cues being made in shitty buildings with dirt floors and jump cues made in a lean-to.

Seen people doing Samsara style work in a room hardly bigger than a closet, seen shops which were so clean you could eat off the floor. I have seen at least five ways to cut shafts, one of which was a machine that cut 32 shafts at a time.

So respectfully, and I do mean that sincerely, please understand that I am not talking out of my ass here just to argue with you. I have seen the junk way more than you have ever held. I have also seen the evolution and rise in quality across the board. So please at least have some respect for those very real experiences that span the past 25 years which I have been a part of the billiard industry.
 
I can't, and of course won't argue that with today's technology, we can produce the most accurately built cues in history. I do, however, want to revisit the old adage:
form follows function...anything else is art.:cool:

A cue is a cue. It's purpose is to hit balls, its goal in life is to remain strong and straight.
So, what it looks like means absolutely nothing to its purpose and goal.

Flex, grip, weight, balance, tone, vibration, deflection, color and ornamentation are all personal preferences and do not change the form or function of the cue. To accommodate any or all of these factors doesn't make something better, or worse.

As evidenced by the huge numbers of classic cues still in use, we have mastered the art of making straight, strong, high quality cues many many decades ago, which means that at least some the cues of today are basically overzealous attempts at reinventing the wheel.

More efficient? Cheaper? More accurately constructed? Stronger? Maybe.
Better performance? Better overall? Maybe not.
 
Blind Test

The only definitive comparison test of the playability of cues is a blind test.

All cues involved in the test would have an identical finish, black or whatever, as long it is identical, and of course the cues could not carry any identifying features or characteristics other than a code for reference and be of the same specifications.

The sampling would involve new and old cues, hand made and production cues, cues from respected custom cue makers as well as no name shops.

It would be very interesting to see and hear players reactions and conclusions.
 
I can't, and of course won't argue that with today's technology, we can produce the most accurately built cues in history. I do, however, want to revisit the old adage:
form follows function...anything else is art.:cool:

A cue is a cue. It's purpose is to hit balls, its goal in life is to remain strong and straight.
So, what it looks like means absolutely nothing to its purpose and goal.

Flex, grip, weight, balance, tone, vibration, deflection, color and ornamentation are all personal preferences and do not change the form or function of the cue. To accommodate any or all of these factors doesn't make something better, or worse.

As evidenced by the huge numbers of classic cues still in use, we have mastered the art of making straight, strong, high quality cues many many decades ago, which means that at least some the cues of today are basically overzealous attempts at reinventing the wheel.

More efficient? Cheaper? More accurately constructed? Stronger? Maybe.
Better performance? Better overall? Maybe not.

Respectfully, there are characteristics that absolutely change how a cue performs. While I certainly agree that there is a range I can assure you that I have seen and used cues which had identical outward appearance but which had been constructed differently.

What can be reasonably done with a cue ball can 100% be tweaked with differing construction methods. That is the biggest takeaway from my experiences over the years.

The past seven years I have been fortunate to be witness to actual testing and tweaking by a cue factory using many professionals as the testers. I would hope we could agree that there hasn't been much in the way of A/B testing in the development of pool cues.

But maybe there was in the sense that perhaps Rambow made cues for Hoppe with continual tweaks until Hoppe was satisfied and that then became the Hoppe model.

I can testify with 100% accuracy that Kao Kao would bring out models that were numbered and ask the pros to shoot with them and give their feedback. Then they would repeat that process. It wasn't tweaking cues to fit the particular pros, instead it was learning to build cues that the pros in a blind test would choose for the performance characteristics only.

Now, I fully believe that us amateurs could never settle this question. What I would like to see is a test along the lines of wrapping cues up with a mix of eras and letting a panel of pros evaluate them with no way to know who made what.

Something of this nature was done in the 90s and it was determined then that the pros and semi-pros could not reliably pick out their own cues from among an assortment of cues with the identity hidden. I'd like to see that experiment repeated in a more controlled environment.

And I'd like to see cues evaluated on a machine that could truly measure whatever criteria would be important such as low deflection.

I do fundamentally agree that a cue is a cue and that a human is adaptable. But having seen what I have seen, and experienced the differences, and going with what Royce said earlier, I disagree that the performance range is so slight as to be inconsequential from era to era.
 
If a cue is straight and strong, it will do what it was made for. It's form is following its function..Any other tweeks are based on perception and/or personal preference, not the form and function.

Now if you break down or isolate the various personal preferences out there...finish, weight, balance, deflection etc., there are indeed better choices to be had than in the past. So perhaps "better" should be defined with the caveat " depending on your needs"
;)
 
I can't, and of course won't argue that with today's technology, we can produce the most accurately built cues in history. I do, however, want to revisit the old adage:
form follows function...anything else is art.:cool:

A cue is a cue. It's purpose is to hit balls, its goal in life is to remain strong and straight.
So, what it looks like means absolutely nothing to its purpose and goal.

Flex, grip, weight, balance, tone, vibration, deflection, color and ornamentation are all personal preferences and do not change the form or function of the cue. To accommodate any or all of these factors doesn't make something better, or worse.

As evidenced by the huge numbers of classic cues still in use, we have mastered the art of making straight, strong, high quality cues many many decades ago, which means that at least some the cues of today are basically overzealous attempts at reinventing the wheel.

More efficient? Cheaper? More accurately constructed? Stronger? Maybe.
Better performance? Better overall? Maybe not.

Well Said!!
 
If a cue is straight and strong, it will do what it was made for. It's form is following its function..Any other tweeks are based on perception and/or personal preference, not the form and function.

Now if you break down or isolate the various personal preferences out there...finish, weight, balance, deflection etc., there are indeed better choices to be had than in the past. So perhaps "better" should be defined with the caveat " depending on your needs"
;)

The form of a cue is established within a certain set of parameters. The function however may vary. Straight and strong are only the basics of a pool cue.

I can make you a pool cue that is 1.25" at the butt cap and 13mm at the tip and tapered within the expected parameters and it will be both straight and strong, i.e. solidly built and I can promise you that you wouldn't attempt to play any meaningful pool match with it. However from outward appearance it would absolutely 100% fit the BCA and WPA specifications of what constitutes a pool cue.

So no, again respectfully, from a design standpoint, the form does not always follow the function when it comes to cues because it's entirely possible to build a cue that has all the form of a cue and very little of the intended function. Conversely it's been proven that one can build a cue which does not conform to the standard form but yet performs all of the function required.

I guess what I am saying is that the engineering of pool cues has come a long way and it's not necessarily all just about personal preference any longer with not a lot of choice in the matter.

As Bill Stroud said he believes that the cues he built in the past decade, especially the Universal shafts he designed, are far better than the cues he built in the 70s. I can't find the statement to provide the exact reference but that is what he said on one of these threads here I think.

Another example is jumping. Leaving the specialty jump cues out of it and speaking only of full length cues some of them jump exceptionally well and others will make any pro player look foolish if he tries to jump a ball with it. The reason is balance and taper.

Daniel Coyle, author of The Sports Gene, has written that improvements in performance across sports have come with the technological advance in equipment. Why is that not possible in pool? Should we just accept that cues peaked in performance sometime in the 60s or whatever past decade you prefer and go with the idea that modern cues are simply differently built but don't also have better performance?

One thing that has never been defined by anyone on this forum is what exactly makes a good cue? No one has dared to make a list of the criteria that define a good cue. My opinion is that they are somewhat afraid that cues from "foreign" lands would be able to satisfy most if not all of those criteria.
 
I think the word engineered is getting way to much use here. I want to know one company that can show a degreed mechanical / acoustical / any / engineer on paid staff.
After talking to many PE's, that know materials, their feeling is all the talk is BS. The fact remains that its wood, it has a specific taper, you can change the sounds it makes via the end, (Tip / Ferrule) you can vary the vibration it carries with the joint, the various woods, but at the end, there is probably not a single company that has utilized the services of an "engineer". Nor do they feel it would be necessary.
When we discussed other sports like tennis, golf, etc.. they said very different movements, very different end results. There has to be a few degreed pool players that could chime in here and offer some mathematical analysis.

Someone asked that aiming systems be quantified numerically, why not a cue?

JV
 
Can we maybe talk about specific processes in cue building, and comparing then and now?

For instance, how are pins installed back then vs. now? What about the pins themselves: I know that a certain US production company will be using flat-bottomed 3/8-10 pins in their line of cues. These certainly weren't available 25 years ago.
 
Back
Top