Do you rotate your cue tip while playing?

[jgpool]

Cue Sight

A few years ago I read about putting a something like a gun site on the ferrule. It is done with a magic marker. I tried using it with my grandson and it worked so I tried on my shaft and it seemed to help, it just felt a bit silly. Now I can see another reason for a gun site on the ferrule. It would be a simple matter to have the gun site face up and it would not mess up anyone’s routine. There appears to be good justification for it.

I am going to try those tests again. A robot might give more exact distances but the way “I” shoot is more important to me. So I will just need to be more exact in my methodology and use a data collection sheet to get the best estimate.

BTW, I think the 1-ball on the foot rail with #2 or 2.5 speed is a good enough test for me to determine CB deflection within a ¼” tolerance. With 10 shots or so I should get a pretty good idea. A ¼” improvement in consistency for accuracy over 6’ is a substantial improvement in aiming in anyone’s game

If I remember correctly Dave Kikel got a patent on a thin straight black line coming back from the ferrule for about 4 inches in his shafts. I'll guess somtime in the 80's. He tried it for awhile but did not continue with the black line. I do not know what the response or acceptance was. I remember using a shaft like this but it was was too distracting for me and very difficult to put it in the same pos everytime. It took away from my concentration on the cueball. The thought process was that is was similiar to a putter, which have a small straight line in the middle of the top of the head for aiming purposes.
My 2 cents.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, was this tested in the Jacksonville Experiement?

No, but Meucci routinely tested for it at trade shows when he brought his "Myth Destroyer" and Mike Page also reported some serious variation when he tried a test (but with a very inexpensive cue).

The Jacksonville Project concentrated on things that needed high speed video, and you can measure squirt more easily without it. In fact, the resolution on high speed cameras is generally so poor that video is a really, really bad way to try to measure squirt.

 

[X Breaker]

I just want to add that the flat spot on snooker cue can only be felt if you hold your cue at the very end on most shots, but a lot of players do not do that. Also, there are snooker cues with a round butt end, with no flat spot, such as a Kevin Deroo.

Another thing I think is worth mentioning is that most players rotate their shaft/cue during the final delivery of the cue due to the opening and closing of the grip and other factors. Lots of players aims with the shaft at a certain orientation, but twist the shaft/cue a bit as it comes through.

Also, I think the Meucci robot is a test to test the throw effect on the object ball due to English. I am not sure if you can call that a test of deflection, since on harder shots, throw is greatly reduced.

Ash is almost like a flat laminated shaft if you look at the growth rings at the cross section. They are quite parallel to each other. Maple does not feature such growth rings in its cross section, the rings are less uniform. I am therefore not too sure if it is fair to compare a snooker ash shaft to a maple pool shaft when it comes to vibration and deflection due to the orientation of the rings.

Technically speaking, the amount of contact surface between the cue ball and the tip could vary due to a different orientation of the tip, since the tip cannot be perfectly round, which could affect how much english is put on the cue ball. Also, some laminated tip might have more glue on one layer than the other or at one certain spot so chalk may not stay on uniformly on the whole surface. Technically, this can affect how much english can be applied, thus "deflection" as well.

Let's not forget lots of ferrules are also a laminated materials so may be we need to look into the orientation of the ferrule first, since the ferrule and the tip transmitt the vibration to the shaft?

In reality, I do not think the difference is worth worrying about. I look at all the great players using a non laminated shaft (e.g. Wu, Reyes, Alcano, Yang, Orcullo, Immonen, Hohmann, Bustamante...etc) and they all seem to be shooting just fine without worrying about facing the shaft the same way up on every shot.

Just my 2 cents.

Richard

 

[3andstop]

Wow ... If I could only deliver a stroke precise enought (like Meucci's machine) to make this all worth talking about each and every time I shoot a shot. Who knows when I walk around the table for my next shot I might stand on a kernel of popcorn by mistake and throw the whole show off.

Who ever said "don't make the game more difficult than it is" a few posts up hit the nail on the head IMHO.

 

[JimS]

Wow ... If I could only deliver a stroke precise enought (like Meucci's machine) to make this all worth talking about each and every time I shoot a shot. Who knows when I walk around the table for my next shot I might stand on a kernel of popcorn by mistake and throw the whole show off.

Who ever said "don't make the game more difficult than it is" a few posts up hit the nail on the head IMHO.

I'll try techniques that are promoted by experts who have found that these techniques may reduce variables and increase the probability of precision stroking. I don't like to miss. Especailly when I saw the line/angle but didn't get the cb there. It's not about makeing the game MORE difficult .... it's just the opposite. It's using information to reduce the difficulty.

I ordered a shaft w/the ferrule removed and it is already marked by the cue maker. If a technique makes enough sense that Jewett uses it then I owe it to myself to try it. The cat knows a bunch more that I do.

 

[seymore15074]

Wow ... If I could only deliver a stroke precise enought (like Meucci's machine) to make this all worth talking about each and every time I shoot a shot. Who knows when I walk around the table for my next shot I might stand on a kernel of popcorn by mistake and throw the whole show off.

Who ever said "don't make the game more difficult than it is" a few posts up hit the nail on the head IMHO.

I hear that.

It's wasted time analysing and worrying about things that are of little significance, if even that.

I'll even let my opponent choose which side of my cue I hold up each and every shot. There's the test, and guess what...no difference.

 

[CreeDo]

... I couldn't even find a way to reliably test it. When I do a firm spot-to-center hit, using a certain rotation, and using the most careful aim and stroke I can, I reliably hit about the same point on the end rail every time, but from my perspective there's no way to tell if I vary a fraction of an inch from hit to hit. I'm 8 feet away. My buddy sat at the end rail and watched and he can't tell either. It's hard for the naked eye to spot and then mark the exact contact point with the end rail when the cueball's moving at a fair clip.

I tried other rotations anyway even though I expected that we wouldn't be able to spot the difference by merely eyeballing it, and the results were the same.

Really I gotta agree that it's obsessive a bit. The rotation is one variable, but there are probably a dozen more that have as much or more effect on the amount of deflection.. how much chalk is on the ball, whether you're bridging from a slightly different position and have a raised or lowered butt as a result... a 10 percent difference in speed, 5 mm difference in contact point on the cueball, whether you're striking a clean or dirty part, whether the cueball is in a subtle divot, blah blah blah etc etc.

I agree with the concerpt of keeping variables to a minimum, but past a point it's going to take away as much as it adds. That being said, this whole discussion made me realize I've been subconsciously rotating my favorite stick before most shots even though it's straight. I'm not sure why, and when I caught myself I wasn't rotating the the same way every time.