But I disagree that a cue has no performance characteristics of its own. It *can* ...To say otherwise, would be to accept that there is no more possible innovation in cue technology.
This is an incorrect assumption, and the conclusion you draw does not logically follow from the premise. Cues, as all objects, certainly have characteristics. However what makes them *performance* characteristics is the implementation of the cue by a human playing pool. Performance is an action. It requires some form of activity. Certain mechanical devices "perform", but they are always set in motion by a person. (for example my watch. It has an automatic movement, so it winds by movement. However if *I* stop moving, eventually the watch will stop. You could clearly measure the "performance" of the watch, but it would be more accurate to say that you can measure either the accuracy, or the precision, or the durability of the watch. These are functions of the characteristics of the watch.) I sure hope there is no argument about the concept that a cue is a lifeless object that cannot act on its own. We agree on that, right? Of course the properties of the cue can be changed. The materials, construction techniques...all of these things can be improved upon. The *value* of these improvements, however, has no meaning unless it makes one shoot better. What is an improvement for some is a detriment for others. (for example, the Predator shaft. Some think its great and helps their game. Others think it is dull and has a dead hit, and robs one of their feel and speed control.) So while has "properties" rather than performance characteristics on its own, there is certainly plenty of room for changes in these properties, which may for certain people yield improvements in performance.
We can take various cues, put them into a device that propels them forward at the exact same speed (to eliminate variables of course), with the same point of impact etcetera and measure the cue ball speed to see if one cue puts more speed on the CB than another. This can be measured. It is a possibility.
Your repeating yourself. We have already agreed that we could do that. I said before and I will say again, all that will do is tell us what the specific characteristics are of the cues we measure. When assigning *value* to these measurement, more is not always better. The very simple point that I am shocked you are still not getting is that
*these qualities are not the performance based reasons why people buy custom cues.* Rather, the principle performance based reason is the *feel* of the hit!!
That is why I've asked for the proponents of the superior performing custom cue position to offer up some explanation as to why the custom cue would be better at some aspect of interaction with the cue ball over say, a quality production cue.
You would want this if you didn’t really understand what I last said above. It isn’t about the interaction with the cue ball, its about the interaction with the body. This comes in the form of vibration and sound. We refer to this as the “hit” of the cue. You have been provided with several explanations of the differences in construction and production of a custom maker vs. a production company. Don’t you remember those posts by Hu expaining in detail why the tolerances that are cost effective for a custom producer to observe are not cost effective for a production line? Did you understand what he was saying? Or are you just ignoring those or pretending it never happened? Also, I am hereby providing you with an explanation of *why* a person would be inclined to prefer a custom cue over a production cue. The perception of the differences would surely be difficult to prove or quantify, but the differences themselves almost certainly arise from physical differences in the construction of the cue. "Firm" hitting cues feel like firm hitting cues because of real, physical, and quantifiable differences in the physical properties of the cue. Whether or not I *like* a firm hitting cue is a separate issue. My experience, however, is that on average the custom cues I've tried (and I've tried lots) tend to more often offer a a firm, solid feeling hit. Always? Of course not. Just more often then not.
My skepticism comes from the basis that the materials and fundamental design of cues being compared are essentially the same. The differences are very small. Most cues are made with maple shafts. Most cues have ferrules of the same types of materials. Most cues have a similar taper. That's what I mean. They don't vary in an extreme way. For example, a 100% stainless steel shaft with vulcanized rubber tip.
Ok. Agreed. Yet didn’t you earlier suggest that there was room for innovation in cue making? Certainly the method by which these pieces are fitted together creates *some* difference? You are contending that this difference doesn’t affect the cues ability to do things like hit the ball straight or at a given speed, and I am not in the least disagreeing with you. What I am saying over and over is that those are not the performance based qualities that lead one to a custom cue purchase. The differences in construction create differences in the “hit”. These difference exist in two mediums. First, there are measurable and explainable physical differences (resulting from perhaps slightly tigher tolerances, decisions made about which type of wood to use in each part of the cue, coring or not, etc.), and second there is the *perception* of those differences. Obviously you need a person to do the perceiving.
But there are differences. These are in application of the same basic design. If these small differences lead to a performance enhancement of the custom cue, by all means - those people should share with us why their methods/materials lead to this improvement.
That has already happened. Reread Hu’s posts. There are also others (I can’t remember by who) which explain some of the construction differences. Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any cue builders participating in this thread.
You may not care whatsoever what the results of a robotic cue test would be, but someone else may.
If I said I don’t care at all for any reason, then I was engaging in hyperbole and I apologize if this caused confusion. What I mean is that I don’t care with respect to my choice of what cue to buy. At least in so much as the robotic tests will address how straight different cues will hit a ball or how hard. I presuppose these things to be close enough to be mostly ignored (which is the central basis of your initial post!). What I *do* care about is how the cue feels to me. That is the metric upon which I would base a buying decision. I actually would find any type of scientific test about cues and anything they do quite interesting.
Someone else may want objective experience to make determinations. It doesn't bother me one bit if someone wants to go by feel. But that person going by feel or subjective experience cannot go around and make claims that their custom cue plays better than a quality production cue as fact. Well, they can do whatever they want - but they shouldn't expect anyone to believe them.
This one paragraph is one of your least logical so far. Lets look closely at it. Ok, so someone might want "objective" experience. Could you give me an example of this? I'm thinking of looking at the Platinum Billiards test on break cues. This test showed the resultant cueball speed when struck with various break cues swung by a robot at a fixed speed. You'd love it! So it sounds like you are saying that some people may want to base their buying decision on the results of this test without ever picking up or trying a single break cue. I mean, ok, that's fine for some I guess, but pretty silly to me. You then say that someone going by subjective experience cannot make claims that their custom cue plays better than a quality production cue. This is simply false. You should totally understand why by now. THE HIT!!! If I "subjectively" evaluate a custom cue and a quality production cue and determine that the custom cue has a firmer more solid hit, then at very lest I can report as fact that I thought it had a firmer more solid hit. If my play style benefits from this type of hit, then the custom cue performs better in my hands than the quality production cue. And I would expect someone to believe me if I said that. If necessary, we could definitely determine the differences in construction that contribute to the differences in hit. Likewise, I bet that if studied, the vibration and sound characteristics of different cues that are considered "firm" or stiff" would be similar. I am fairly certain that numerous cue builders and companies have done this type of research. Predator has built quite a business on the technology of building a "solid hitting cue". Just remember though, that even if a buyer based their decision ONLY on something like the Platinum Billiards data for break cue speed, the *decision* to use this data and consider it important, rather than some other factor, is a subjective analysis of what factors are important to the buyer. In effect, it is almost arbitrary to decide based on this data alone. Yet even this arbitrary decision is a personal, relative, and subjective decision.
I'm appealing to those that view this entire subject objectively.
No one does that. It isn't how humans work. If you think you view anything completely objectively, you have a great deal to learn about life. I could talk to you for many hours about researcher bias, subjectivity in epistemology, and the wonderful topic of the duality of light. But please just trust me, there is no such thing as completely objective human experience.
You agree that the custom doesn't produce different results in accuracy or spin. That's been my focus in this thread.
I understand why your initial inclination to start this thread may have arisen out of that standpoint, but hopefully you now realize that accuracy and spin have little to do with the functional performance based differences between cues.
You come from a different perspective, one that (correct me if I am wrong), is saying that a person who feels comfortable for whatever subjective reasons with a particular cue is going to play better with that cue. That's about preferences. Not about cue performance.
Well, since you asked, I will once again correct you. You've got the basic gist...however I would clarify that the differences are not subjective, although there is certainly a subjective *experience* of the differences. Also, I'm not concerned about "whatever" subjective reasons, only ones concerned with the feel of the cue. For example the smell or taste of the cue while physical and real, though also subjective, are not important to me. My *evaluation* of the differences (in other words, pronouncing one "better" than the other) is subjective. However there are certainly real, physical, objective differences in the cues that lead to the difference in perceived *hit*. Would you be willing to agree that the physical differences that create a different type of hit are a type of "performance" (to use your version of that term) of the cue? I'm not talking about my experience or evaluation of those differences, just the physical differences themselves.
As said above, this is a matter of a comfort (physical and/or psychological).
To a degree.
(continued)
,I also had the opportunity to visit with an old eccentric who had Crap in his Basement in Chicago!!! Gave me some little blue books on making Blanks...Burton somebody:yes:
The facts are as follows:
