Does shaft stiffness/whippiness dramatically affects deflection?

[Colin Colenso]

Back Pedal?...Not at all!

Colin backpedals and does a superb imitation of Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk with his statement above. What you actually said earlier was this:

"I'd like to know exactly what Bob Meucci does have to say about the how the butt effects deflection. I'd like to hear from anyone on this actually.
In fact, what advantages can a good butt have over a cheap butt at all"?

Now, you can interpret the meaning of a statement any way that you want, just like Bill Clinton did when he challenged with..."That depends on what your definition of "IS" is". We can argue semantics all day long and get no where, but it sure seems to me in your original statement that you place NO...ZERO...ZILCH...NADA credence in the fact that a butt has any effect on deflection whatsoever.

This was refering to [Actually, what I have been saying about deflection does leave the door open for explaining some effects from the butt end of the cue.]

This is not contradictory at all!

If that statement seems to you to mean there is Zero...Zilch...Nada influence from the butt then you clearly don't understand what I have been saying.

I've actually, for the first time given guys like Blud and Meucci a possible mechanism for them to explain how the butt may affect deflection. I wanted to hear their own reasons, because, to my knowledge, they have never been able to suggest a credible mechanism to describe what they believe.

I followed with the comment that the butt effects are probably minimal concerning deflection. Including that part in your quote would have destroyed you impressive What Is is argument

No offense meant drivermaker...I'm just to have my 2 cents heard as is everyone else here.

 

[Colin Colenso]

What I don't get about this whole argument/discussion is that everybody seems to be focusing on shaft deflection, and not what really matters, which is cue ball deflection from your aiming point. IMO, once you understand that there is deflection on off center hits, you have to ‘learn’ how much the cue you are using causes and compensate accordingly. The only way I see to do this is through trial and error and practice. Of course your level of experience will determine how difficult this is. Maybe someday we'll have an electronic gizmo that will automatically calculate the compensation. Well that’s not what I want; I take pride in my skill/artistry to do this myself.

Hi Claymont,
We tend to be focused on shaft deflection here because that is supposed to be the thread topic.

There is another topic active in the main forum that has been all about cue-ball deflection. And there is probably 50 similiar discussions in the archived posts.

There are other posters here who like to stick their heads in and tell us that deflection and shaft stiffness are irrelevent. I ask them to stick to the threads they think are relevant. There are a few here who like to think about and discuss these issues and a lot who want to close them off.

 

[blud]

yes

OK. Where's your data? Have you ever measured a pivot point? Do you even know what I mean by pivot point?

As for your comment, just get used to your cue and adjust, that's certainly true, but for some players it's much easier to adjust to a stick -- I use that word because "cue" alone is too often ambiguous -- with a particular amount of squirt. Anyone who has played for thirty years with a heavy ferrule and lots of english will be very unhappy with a low-squirt stick such as a Predator. On the other hand, a good case can be made for starting a beginner with a relatively low-squirt stick.

Hi Bob,
Not trying to fight with you or anyone.


Where's my data, It's in my hands and brain....

Yes, I do understand what you mean, [pivot point]. A lot of things come into play with any test.

The lenght of your bridge hand from the ferrule comes into play, how far your from the ball at contact,how tight your fingers are, so on and, and, as well as the taper, ferrule material, tip, shaft stiffness, joint material, joint size, weight of the shaft,butt weight, and size, and on and on and......It takes all of this and much more, to reach data. Then it will change from player to player because of several factors, such as, stance, grip, lenght of stroke, weight of cue, mm of shaft,and on and and....

BTW, been playing for 50 years....not a world champ, but can hold my own, even at 64...........

Predator, sounds like you sell for them.
Low squirt, again a test and an opinion.....
Low squirt cue. I have tried the predator shaft on my cue, couldn't play as well with it as my shafts. Maybe it takes time, but I can play a little and know what to expect out of my cues. Don't happen with thoses shafts. There just not for me.I have taken a predator ferrule and installed it on one of my regular maple shafts. Still dosen't show me anything.I prefer, IVORY.....


[STICK IS NOT PROPER]. If you sir, were a cuemaker, you too, would not call cues, sticks..........

Don't need someone to tell me what to use or how to use it, much less go by there's or your data...That kind of data is not nessesary, in my opinion.

Play with it and ADJUST.....Again, never will be a perfect cue.......As good cuemakers,we all try, but just can't get there...

Your findings or someone elses, will not fit all players.just as cues, no two are alike.

Just play and adjust.

What good will these test do, for the average player, or any player for that matter.Nothing, because as cues no two players are alike. keeping this in mind, data, will not apply to all.......

When you teach pool, do you also give a lecture on this subject. If so, what good will it do.

I know for a fact, if I were to take lessons, from you or some one else, and they started talking about which squirts more or less, I got a refund coming back. [maybe I should of taken lessons way back. However, back then, no one gave you air, much less lessons. Had to do it on your own].

With many test and data, no one has ever come with the same answers. Not me, you or anyone else. Just to many opinion's to have faith in any of them.....

I, sir, do know what works best for me and MY CUES.........

Surly not a lab test or report. Don't need them.

Do you Bob, have your own cue shop and build cues? If you did, you might look at this from another angle..

[ not talking about visiting a shop and doing a little work as joseph cues does].He's not a full fledged cuemaker. I am talking about owning a shop, puttin in 16 to 18 hour days, 7 days a week for years, building jigs, fixtures, and building cues that play good in your own opinion, as well as your customers opinion's].

A lot of differance depending on a report, these are meaning less to most of us cuemakers at this point....Build cues, then come with a real report. Field experance is where it's at, my friend....

Answer this if you can?
what will be the differance in a cue I build, if I make it hit soft, and then build another cue and make it hit more crisp, using the same materials, and useing the same shaft for both cues. What will happen with your data then? Will it have less or more squirt?

Remember it takes the "WHOLE" cue to come with your data..not a stick.....
blud

 

[Colin Colenso]

Blud: You see Colin, your so raped up with science stuff, your missing the point.
Why come with scientfic reports that are meaningless to the average Joe?

Colin: Because I am trying to have a discussion with guys who know a little more than the avergae Joe.

Blud: Reports are meaningless, period. Won't do anything but confuse most common folks.[ pool-players]....

Colin: I will notify every university and business in the world immediately regarding your profound breakthrough. No more reports! I got it

Blud: Labs, yes, I believe in Lab testing. It's called a pool table. That's my lab.
Try one twice and again if nessesary, until you get it right.

Colin: I've forward your resume to Intel R&D division. They're sure to be impressed.

Blud: You see, we both have our own ways to reach an answer. My answers are correct in my way of thinking. You have your way.

Colin: That is called polylogism! Made famous by Karl Marx. Meaning there are two types of truths. One truth for the elite, another for the common proletariat.

Blud: Trouble is with your way of testing, it's never settled. Many differant people, and many reports over the years, and you "brains" are still not satisfided with others reports, much less your own.

Colin: No science and no product are complete. Accept maybe yours?

Blud: So you guys keep it up, and get no where fast, after many hours of testing and coming with this and that. And it will be a 180 degrees off, of another report. If this wasn't true, why are you and a few others, reading and reporting on others findings? Then trying to convence us to believe "any" such reports, that you might run or test in your labs.

Colin: Research such as that done by Bob Jewett and the SFBA has led to the Predator Cue, your competition, and now dominates among professional players. And I have developed my own theories, assisted by the work that has been done before me. That is how science works! Not by ignoring all the work that has been done before.

Blud: In the end, no one really cares about the end results, other than the "brains" who have waisted much time, for nothing. Honking there own horns, to tell the world "how" smart they are.

Colin: Just because we are having a discussion that you don't understand (This you have admitted to), doesn't mean we are honking our own horns. If anyone is honking here, it is YOU!
.
Blud: Mean while, the rest of us, will be playing better pool, making our adjustments, because were in the pool-room, and not doing math on cues.

Colin: This sounds like the fallacy of 'claim to authority'. You're suggesting you know more because you play more and play better.

Many great players don't have a clue about this, and I've never claimed they need to. Not being able to play, certainly doesn't lend much credibility either.

For your interest though, if only to cut off this line of your argument, I have played at national level and just a couple of months ago reached the last 16 of one of Australia's top 3 8-ball tournaments. Despite 3 years not playing that game. How's your game? Too busy making and selling cues?

Sorry to waste everyone's time and bandwidth countering Blud's assertions!

 

[blud]

please

This was refering to [Actually, what I have been saying about deflection does leave the door open for explaining some effects from the butt end of the cue.]

This is not contradictory at all!

If that statement seems to you to mean there is Zero...Zilch...Nada influence from the butt then you clearly don't understand what I have been saying.

I've actually, for the first time given guys like Blud and Meucci a possible mechanism for them to explain how the butt may affect deflection. I wanted to hear their own reasons, because, to my knowledge, they have never been able to suggest a credible mechanism to describe what they believe.

I followed with the comment that the butt effects are probably minimal concerning deflection. Including that part in your quote would have destroyed you impressive What Is is argument

No offense meant drivermaker...I'm just to have my 2 cents heard as is everyone else here.

Hi Colin,
first off, please never put me in the same catagory as meucci. Please.

My proff is using a cue. Run all the test you want. The real test is made by the player....Can't for the life of me, understand why you two [bob jewett]don't get it.

Your test, will not fit each player for many reasons. weight of his or her cue, mm of shaft, lenght of taper, type of taper, joint size,and on and, and..

A computerized robot, or whatever tells a one story.. Take two butts and one shaft, and the test are differant, then one butt, and two shafts, and guess what, differant results again. You can't get nothing closer than an averge. Who wants an average/ Not me, pal....

More reasons, is, no two people are alike. No two shafts, butts, or whatever are alike, so therefore, when "we" are playing, we don't hit the ball as the dummie does. The cue will and does re-act differantly on differant shots..DUH!
Will you guys ever understand that?

I realize that Bob Jewett can play and play very well, perhaps you can also.

Challange to you two!
I would like to play both of you a set, building cues, and the looser goes to the electric chair. "REALLY". Before I, pull the switch, see how you then feel about your test. Of course this would be after you got the field experance behind you, building quality cues. [not sticks]......

BTW, you don't need a stake horse, just show up...
blud

 

[blud]

game

My best game is building cues, pal.

sure as heck not reading someones test who can't build quality cues.The true test is the player making up his or her own mind.
blud

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi Colin,
first off, please never put me in the same catagory as meucci. Please.

My proff is using a cue. Run all the test you want. The real test is made by the player....Can't for the life of me, understand why you two [bob jewett]don't get it.

Your test, will not fit each player for many reasons. weight of his or her cue, mm of shaft, lenght of taper, type of taper, joint size,and on and, and..

A computerized robot, or whatever tells a one story.. Take two butts and one shaft, and the test are differant, then one butt, and two shafts, and guess what, differant results again. You can't get nothing closer than an averge. Who wants an average/ Not me, pal....

More reasons, is, no two people are alike. No two shafts, butts, or whatever are alike, so therefore, when "we" are playing, we don't hit the ball as the dummie does. The cue will and does re-act differantly on differant shots..DUH!
Will you guys ever understand that?

I realize that Bob Jewett can play and play very well, perhaps you can also.

Challange to you two!
I would like to play both of you a set, building cues, and the looser goes to the electric chair. "REALLY". Before I, pull the switch, see how you then feel about your test. Of course this would be after you got the field experance behind you, building quality cues. [not sticks]......

BTW, you don't need a stake horse, just show up...
blud

Blud,
The testing by robots done thus far is abysmal. What we see from predator and Meucci is not reliable as it is not independent.

If there was a good independent lab, all the things you are talking about could be tested. But currently, only a couple of things are known for certain, and that is that high endmass and tip offset are correlated with higher deflection.

We have some other info from past knowledge about spherical physics. Upon these some theories are based. There is a hell of a long way to go.

God forbid someone sets up a robot which can test all the possible variables of a cue. The huge amounts of data would lead to insufferable amounts of physics discussions here.

btw: Thanks for the invite to the electric chair. Best laugh I've had all day

I may take you up on the cue building challenge one day. Do you mind I outsource all the hard work and just advise on the areas that I think matter? Who is gonna be the independent tester? Can we use my robot?

 

[blud]

good

Blud,
The testing by robots done thus far is abysmal. What we see from predator and Meucci is not reliable as it is not independent.

If there was a good independent lab, all the things you are talking about could be tested. But currently, only a couple of things are known for certain, and that is that high endmass and tip offset are correlated with higher deflection.

We have some other info from past knowledge about spherical physics. Upon these some theories are based. There is a hell of a long way to go.

God forbid someone sets up a robot which can test all the possible variables of a cue. The huge amounts of data would lead to insufferable amounts of physics discussions here.

btw: Thanks for the invite to the electric chair. Best laugh I've had all day

I may take you up on the cue building challenge one day. Do you mind I outsource all the hard work and just advise on the areas that I think matter? Who is gonna be the independent tester? Can we use my robot?

Hi Colin,
Nothing wrong with a little humor, my friend. No out source at all. No robots either. Do it all on your on. You can use my equipment, if you like. It's simple to use, no need for a degree to operate it.[just had to through that one in]......
I don't think I play as well as you. But for an old guy, not to badly.Maybe some day we will meet play a little pool, have a few beers,and have a good laugh over this topic.
blud

 

[blud]

cues

Blud,
The testing by robots done thus far is abysmal. What we see from predator and Meucci is not reliable as it is not independent.

If there was a good independent lab, all the things you are talking about could be tested. But currently, only a couple of things are known for certain, and that is that high endmass and tip offset are correlated with higher deflection.

We have some other info from past knowledge about spherical physics. Upon these some theories are based. There is a hell of a long way to go.

God forbid someone sets up a robot which can test all the possible variables of a cue. The huge amounts of data would lead to insufferable amounts of physics discussions here.

btw: Thanks for the invite to the electric chair. Best laugh I've had all day

I may take you up on the cue building challenge one day. Do you mind I outsource all the hard work and just advise on the areas that I think matter? Who is gonna be the independent tester? Can we use my robot?

For got to add something Colin,

Cue building challenge, letting someone else build it and you "just advise" on the areas you think that will matter.Won't hapen....

This alone tells me there's no need for you to get started on your cue. All things matter, when building cues for sale, my friend. All things. This is what seperates us, the brains and real cuemakers. I only went 2 weeks in the 9th grade. Take a look at my shop, and machinery, and see if I need a sheep skin hangin on da-wall?
blud

 

[drivermaker]

I've actually, for the first time given guys like Blud and Meucci a possible mechanism for them to explain how the butt may affect deflection. I wanted to hear their own reasons, because, to my knowledge, they have never been able to suggest a credible mechanism to describe what they believe.
I

Who in the hell are you that they have to explain anything to? If you want to know about it, you should be calling them directly and see is they're willing to give you any tidbits here and there and be satisfied with it. If they give it... fine. If not...that's your tough luck. You can keep hypothesizing and theorizing until the cows come home.

 

[drivermaker]

Are you absolutely 100% sure about that? My understanding is he's a decent billiard player, but as a pool player, a much better writer than a doer. Wanna chime in Uncle Bob?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Are you absolutely 100% sure about that? My understanding is he's a decent billiard player, but as a pool player, a much better writer than a doer. Wanna chime in Uncle Bob?

Actually, I play pool better than I play billiards. The last pro tournament I played in, I beat David Howard 11-8 or so by outbreaking him. Does that count for anything? Last season I had the high run in a 14.1 league I play in of 77, which isn't up to Willie's standard, but I think it is better than the average pool player.

 

[blud]

amen

Who in the hell are you that they have to explain anything to? If you want to know about it, you should be calling them directly and see is they're willing to give you any tidbits here and there and be satisfied with it. If they give it... fine. If not...that's your tough luck. You can keep hypothesizing and theorizing until the cows come home.

and to that, I say AMEN.
blud

 

[JPB]

Who in the hell are you that they have to explain anything to? If you want to know about it, you should be calling them directly and see is they're willing to give you any tidbits here and there and be satisfied with it. If they give it... fine. If not...that's your tough luck. You can keep hypothesizing and theorizing until the cows come home.

Sorry, strongly disagree with this and Blud's response. Blud posted on a public forum as an expert in the field of cuemaking. Once he enters the fray it is completely fair to ask him to justify his conclusions or positions in a rational way. if he chooses to keep information as a trade secret he is free to do so, but IMO he should say that he refuses to divulge some proprietary information. I don't think Blud is doing that here. People who hold themselves out as experts in a field should expect people to ask them to explain things. I really do not understand Blud's position that seems to mock science or knowledge. At one point in the thread Blud used the term "science gods" an interesting oxymoron that appears to equate scientific knowledge with mysticism. Blud is correct that a good scientist might not be able to build a good cue. While I have never played with one of Blud's cues, I assume he makes a good one. (I don't need to assume much to know it must be better than a meucci btw, lol) But what is undeniable is that a good cuemaker could be better with an understanding of science and a willingness to look at information derived from a scientific process.

I learned something from this thread and had to think about why some cues I have played with played the way they did. I am not a great scientist, a great cuemaker, or a great player, but I have a brain and eyes and am willing to think about things. What is so wrong with that? I don't understand the fear of information that seems to underlie some of the posts in the thread or some of the logical fallacies employed.


P.S. While it is no guarantee of a good cue in and of itself, an engineering/science background didn't seem to hurt Helmstetter or Capone, eh?

 

[paul fanelli]

science and pool

Pool is an incredibly complex game for physical analysis. An exact mathematical representation of a shot must consider friction of cloth, spin on cue, friction at object ball contact, etc, etc. While the scientist can consider the problems, the accomplished player has a real working knowledge of all the physics involved, though most could not explain it in scientific terms. Not many PHDs among the top ranks of pool players, but they must have a gut level grasp of physics in the practical sense.

A simple thing like a cue seems to be a topic for considerable scientific discussion. Great for controversy, but an endless discussion because there is no answer. What is the real question? To sum up, it boils down to "what is the best (or best type or style) cue?" But that is not the real question. What we all want is the cue that makes shots, and controls whitey. No mathmatical formula can select that cue for us, we have to try it. Then its up to the players talent to make the most of it. Just as good poolplayers are gut level scientists, so are cuemakers. Any cuemaker who has made successful cues has a knowledge deeper than any formulas on paper. A cuemakers understanding of the materials used, how they are put together, how all elements blend into the whole cue, that is a cuemakers science. Most cuemakers realized early on that "The" perfect cue is a fantasy. But any player can find "A" perfect cue.

There are tons of good cuemakers out there, and no two are alike. Nobody can decide which cue is best for them on the basis of any scientific report. There are too many variables that must be ignored in tests, and the biggest variable is the pool player. It isn't reports or discussion that determines the value of a cuemakers product, its the customers who perform the final testing.

Having said that, I still like reading all the discussions on deflection, etc. I'm sure it will continue. Keep up the testing and reports, because there is something to learn even from scientists who cant run ten-packs.

paul

 

[drivermaker]

Actually, I play pool better than I play billiards. The last pro tournament I played in, I beat David Howard 11-8 or so by outbreaking him. Does that count for anything? Last season I had the high run in a 14.1 league I play in of 77, which isn't up to Willie's standard, but I think it is better than the average pool player.

O.K....I'm impressed, seriously. My opinion has changed. (Of your pool playing skills, at least)

 

[catscradle]

Pool is an incredibly complex game for physical analysis. An exact mathematical representation of a shot must consider friction of cloth, spin on cue, friction at object ball contact, etc, etc. While the scientist can consider the problems, the accomplished player has a real working knowledge of all the physics involved, though most could not explain it in scientific terms. Not many PHDs among the top ranks of pool players, but they must have a gut level grasp of physics in the practical sense.

I see no reason whatsoever to assume a top player has a "working knowledge of ... the physics". I suspect it is more intuitive for most of them than anything else. They've shot tons of balls and just "know" what to do to get the balls to do what they want. Some of them may have the curiousity and the discipline to find out why, but I doubt many do. Not that they're neccessarily incapable of understanding the physics, just that they don't give a rat's behind about the physics. Personally, I've got a boatload of knowledge, but, well ....

A simple thing like a cue seems to be a topic for considerable scientific discussion. Great for controversy, but an endless discussion because there is no answer. What is the real question? To sum up, it boils down to "what is the best (or best type or style) cue?" But that is not the real question. What we all want is the cue that makes shots, and controls whitey. No mathmatical formula can select that cue for us, we have to try it. Then its up to the players talent to make the most of it. Just as good poolplayers are gut level scientists, so are cuemakers. Any cuemaker who has made successful cues has a knowledge deeper than any formulas on paper. A cuemakers understanding of the materials used, how they are put together, how all elements blend into the whole cue, that is a cuemakers science. Most cuemakers realized early on that "The" perfect cue is a fantasy. But any player can find "A" perfect cue.
There are tons of good cuemakers out there, and no two are alike. Nobody can decide which cue is best for them on the basis of any scientific report. There are too many variables that must be ignored in tests, and the biggest variable is the pool player. It isn't reports or discussion that determines the value of a cuemakers product, its the customers who perform the final testing.

All that is true IMO, but it doesn't negate the value of data scientifically gathered via the scientific method. How it relates to a person's everyday pool game is questionable, but IMO knowledge is valuable in it's own right whether it leads to something practical or not.

Having said that, I still like reading all the discussions on deflection, etc. I'm sure it will continue. Keep up the testing and reports, because there is something to learn even from scientists who cant run ten-packs.

paul

Personally I'm pretty impressed with anyone who can run a 10-pack be he scientific data collector or garbage collector, as I'm equally impressed with a scientist who can analyze the dynamics of the physics involved in pool even if he can only run 2 balls. Matter of fact I'm probably as impressed with a garbage collector who does a real good job collecting garbage and has developed arms like a gorilla from throwing around those trash barrels, but can't run 2 balls.

BTW, assuming this is Paul Finelli the cuemaker, though I've never had the pleasure to hit with one, you make a great looking cue.

 

[blud]

you

Sorry, strongly disagree with this and Blud's response. Blud posted on a public forum as an expert in the field of cuemaking. Once he enters the fray it is completely fair to ask him to justify his conclusions or positions in a rational way. if he chooses to keep information as a trade secret he is free to do so, but IMO he should say that he refuses to divulge some proprietary information. I don't think Blud is doing that here. People who hold themselves out as experts in a field should expect people to ask them to explain things. I really do not understand Blud's position that seems to mock science or knowledge. At one point in the thread Blud used the term "science gods" an interesting oxymoron that appears to equate scientific knowledge with mysticism. Blud is correct that a good scientist might not be able to build a good cue. While I have never played with one of Blud's cues, I assume he makes a good one. (I don't need to assume much to know it must be better than a meucci btw, lol) But what is undeniable is that a good cuemaker could be better with an understanding of science and a willingness to look at information derived from a scientific process.

I learned something from this thread and had to think about why some cues I have played with played the way they did. I am not a great scientist, a great cuemaker, or a great player, but I have a brain and eyes and am willing to think about things. What is so wrong with that? I don't understand the fear of information that seems to underlie some of the posts in the thread or some of the logical fallacies employed.


P.S. While it is no guarantee of a good cue in and of itself, an engineering/science background didn't seem to hurt Helmstetter or Capone, eh?

Hello JPB, whoever you are????

I do not mock science, sir.
All the case studies on deflection so on and so forth, are just studies. Nothing more, and has in my opinion, done nothing but waist time. Cuemakers listen to players and do not read reports.

The best report is by testing a cue on the pool-table, with real people, not robots, or math..... This is how I learned to build a good playing cue. You can take all the squrit, slide, cloth, friction, tips, ferrules,and numbers you want and there robots, and nothing will come of all of the conflicting reports. If it's ever done by an independant lab, then maybe, just maybe we might get some good of it. If that should ever take place, I think it should be done by several differant labs, all running the same test. Then come with there reports, compare all reoprts and see if any or all agree. Now that would be some interseting reading.

No one has ask me to explain what and how I build my cues. I will not explain this, until "your" check clears the bank...
If you want to learn how to build quality cues, I first would ask you several questions about why you want to build cues. If you don't come with the correct answers, you do not learn from me. [ I turn down around 80 to 90 guys each year].....If your in it for the money, sorry, go elseware. If your wanting to do it for the love of the sport, and try to build great cues, then, you got a chance of being taught by me. Then bring your cash, and I'll teach you. I teach more folks how to build cues than anyone else, and also design and build more machinery for custom cuemakers, and production shops than anyone else in the world.

Yes, my record is a good one. With players like, Danny DiLiberto, Buddy Hall, Grady Mathews, Jimmy Mataya, Buddy Dennis, C.J. Whiley, Belinda Compos, Mary Kenniston, Jack "jersey red" Brite, the list goes on and on, this is all the PROFF I need.

I had 17 world champions playing with my cues. yes, 17, I paid no endorsments, don't believe in it,the pro-players came to me, because my cues played as they expected.
I do not believe in paying someone to repersent me and my products. Pay M. Jordans an extra mill or two and he would say converse were the best shoes. Just for the money.


Having this record of 17 Pro- men and women to our sport, tellling it like it is, without pay, makes me very proud, and I know Im on the right track.

There's not another cuemaker in the world who has this record, or can even come close to it. Not even the cuemakers who could afford to pay there pro's, ever had this many playing with there product at the same time.....

Fear of information, big pile of crap.Your guessing, whoever you are.I'm not scared of any info....There's none to date,that will be of help me.
[IT AIN'T BROKE]..

Science!
I do not believe the results will help me at this time in life, to create the perfect cue. It might be fine with some players and cuemakers, but it will not suit all. The players will be and has been the best test of all..Only the player can make a call on what's suited and not suited for them.......That's the bench mark that's been used for many years....IT AIN'T BROKE.

You can take millions of dollars [ and it would ] to build a robot to assist in the studies. The robot will NEVER come with the touch, feel, and play at the same angle of all the shots that will come up, that the player would. The test will be worthless to most.

I'm not the only cuemaker who builds quality hitting cues.The customer, should make up his or her mind as to what cue they like, not a sicentist and or a report.
What's wrong with that.

This is what i have said all along. The player knows BEST.

Going to continue building quality cues without the help of the scientis and his reports.
You scientist, with your reports, have at it. All the best to each of you.
Blud

 

[catscradle]

...
P.S. While it is no guarantee of a good cue in and of itself, an engineering/science background didn't seem to hurt Helmstetter or Capone, eh?

or Jim Buss.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Beer and Pool is good!

Hi Colin,
Nothing wrong with a little humor, my friend. No out source at all. No robots either. Do it all on your on. You can use my equipment, if you like. It's simple to use, no need for a degree to operate it.[just had to through that one in]......
I don't think I play as well as you. But for an old guy, not to badly.Maybe some day we will meet play a little pool, have a few beers,and have a good laugh over this topic.
blud

Hi Blud,
Sure, I'm certainly up for a few beers over the pool table. We do share the same passion, whatever differences.

When I can get myself over to the US to a show, I'll be straight up to your booth to check out your artistry and have a good chat

Re: Schooling, 3 of my greatest heros, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin had a total of 6 hours formal education between them. I too learned more out of school than I ever learned in it.

Re: Robot testing. It will be quite difficult to develop robots than can test as many things as a player can test. They may find their uses in the future, but so far they haven't proven any more than any decent player can find out with a few comparative hits.

Now I assume you have had many new ideas and tested them in your development of making better cues. Bob and I are also thinking about what is going on and coming up with ideas that might be worth trying in a cue.

When or if these ideas are applied, the proof of the pudding would be in how it plays in the hands of the players. Robot tests may or may not be particulary helpful.

Can cues get much better? Enough to make any significant difference? Maybe, maybe not!

I suspect that some improvements can come with experimentation in abrasives (chalk), tips, ferrules, shafts, joints and maybe even butts.

An area of interest for me is in ferrules with anisotropic strength characteristics. That means, they are stronger or more elastic in one direction more than another. Perhaps there can even be articulation (parts that move separately). These ideas come to me based on my thinking about how forces are interacting at the tip/ball interface. For now its conjecture, but all developments need ideas followed by testing.