Hardest hitting cue I ever hit with was Scott Rabon's old "Its George" cue. Current makers...Bluegrass, Omen, Josey, Tascarella.
Hardest Hitting Cue
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
I have a McDermott that hits like a freight train.
Also the "Mark Smith" cue. I guess I have to find a new business becuase that's my name. Someone already beat me to it.
Also the "Mark Smith" cue. I guess I have to find a new business becuase that's my name. Someone already beat me to it.
Varney Cues said:
Very odd. Two of my favorite cues are my Josey SP and my
25 year old Meucci Diamond. Other favorites are Bender,
Scruggs, Olney, Kikel, Dale Perry, Rauenzahn, Shurtz ,
and McDermott. Where's the pattern? And yet there are
other sticks: Schon, Dominiak, Clint Putnam, that just
seem too stiff to play with. I've found this concept of
stiff vs. soft mystifying. And , no, I'm not a rookie. 40+ years.
I'd love to get a little feedback on my comments.
A lot of it is joint diameter. Meucci's are .815-.820 and most of the stiffer hitting cues are .850-.860. Allison's custom short Cuetec is .790 and is the thinnest I've seen. Often if I'm making a super heavy duty break cue...I'll even go as high as .880 in the joint. That makes for an extremely stiff, rigid cue with minimal flex...especially with a 14+mm shaft.
It seems as if there is always reference to feeback. According to Mike Lambros the cue should feel the same no matter how you hit the CB
http://www.lambroscues.com/indexpage.htm
What are you looking for in feedback?
http://www.lambroscues.com/indexpage.htm
What are you looking for in feedback?
A lot more of the perceived hit is a result of the shaft design, particularly its taper. Arguing which cues hit hard or soft, and which joint design yields a harder or softer hit, is meaningless unless the same shaft is used to measure all cues. The butt construction and joint design will affect the hit slightly, but it is much more about the shaft.
Consider this extreme scenario: take a control sample butt and adapt a broom handle to it with a tip. Now take that same control sample butt and this time attach a 1/4" dowle and tip. Which one will have the harder hit?
Back to the real world of pool ... a shafts taper, whether it is more parabolic as in a billiard shaft (really stiff) or a parallel sided, extended "pro taper" (springy), determines whether the shaft gives more or less. That difference is what really gives a cue a greater or lesser sense of stiffness, or firmness of hit. In short, all else being equal, a shaft with a constant taper (conical shaped) will be stiffer than a shaft with extended parallel sides (cylindrical). The conical shape resists bending due to compression a lot more than a cylindrical shape. Simple physics.
Read the discussion of shaft design on Ray Schuler's website for a more complete explanation. It's very interesting material.
Consider this extreme scenario: take a control sample butt and adapt a broom handle to it with a tip. Now take that same control sample butt and this time attach a 1/4" dowle and tip. Which one will have the harder hit?
Back to the real world of pool ... a shafts taper, whether it is more parabolic as in a billiard shaft (really stiff) or a parallel sided, extended "pro taper" (springy), determines whether the shaft gives more or less. That difference is what really gives a cue a greater or lesser sense of stiffness, or firmness of hit. In short, all else being equal, a shaft with a constant taper (conical shaped) will be stiffer than a shaft with extended parallel sides (cylindrical). The conical shape resists bending due to compression a lot more than a cylindrical shape. Simple physics.
Read the discussion of shaft design on Ray Schuler's website for a more complete explanation. It's very interesting material.
TheBook said:
If I read Lambros's comments correctly, he doesn't mean that the intensity of the feedback should be the same, just that the frequency or frequency distribution should be the same. So he prefers that when you hit harder, you get a louder version of the same sound: tink to TINK or thup to THUP... not thup to TINK.
I think this feedback (both the sound as well as the tactile feedback to the rear hand) are important ways we zero in on good speed control. We learn by doing things over and over again, each time estimating what we need to do to achieve it and then seeing whether the outcome was too much or too little or whatever. As much imediate feedback that we can get that's connected to whatever it is we were estimating, the more efficiently we train ourselves, imo.
Ron Shepard (of RSB fame) tells the story of I think having an ear infection or something and finding that his speed control was out of wack for the duration. He believed it was because of how he relies on the sound feedback. I think his explanation makes sense.
Ever hit with a cue with something loose in the back and get a rattly tinny sound? It's very unpleasant, imo, even if it doesn't affect the shot directly. If that can be undesirable, then it's reasonable to expect another sound (perhaps a musical percussion type sound) can be desirable and reinforcing.
Anyway that's what at least one person is talking about when he says "feedback."
mike page
fargo
mikepage said:
Mike, it would seem to me that by the time you hear the sound, it's too late, the ball is on the way. I can see how during the speed control development period the feedback would be important. However once the speed control "sense" is developed what's it matter? It is all kinesthetic pre-hit feedback that matters then. Maybe over an extended period of time without the feedback I could envision speed control diminishing, but not over the length of time of an ear infection.
Older Schon cues used to have a nice stiff hit.
n_den said:conical all the way! no other way around it.
3-Cushion Nut,
n_den
I had an old Palmer with the conical shaft and brass joint. Loved the hit on that thing.
Then I had an EBony Coker with a buckhorn ferrule, it didn't hit quite as hard (but very close), but I loved the feedback.
Maybe that's the combination I need, an ebony wood to wood with a conical shaft.
The hit on those two cues was what I mean when I say hard stiff hit
catscradle said:
True, not hearing a shot can't affect *that* shot.
True, you're not going to unlearn something in a week.
But these are not what I'm suggesting.
Suppose you took a bunch of singers or trumpet players who are accustomed to hearing themselves while they perform and cut off their ability to hear themselves. So they're singing or playing and they hear only silence. Would that impact their ability to play/sing well? I'm guessing the results would vary quite a lot--that some people rely on that feedback more than others to stay "in stroke" or whatever they call the equivalent.
I think it's hard to be in stroke when some of the normal, expected feedback is missing.
mike page
fargo
mikepage said:
I disagree. In singing, hearing your voice is the only way to know whether you've produced the tone, pitch, and volume you wanted. I pool, tactile sensation is NOT the only way to know whether the ball went the direction and speed you wanted. Your eyes can tell you that in a lot more detail than the nerves in your grip hand.
I think the "hit" feedback of a cue is of minimal importance to pool performance, except maybe a placebo effect, where players might shoot better simply because the cue they're holding feels good in their hands, and feels good when they hit, and that gives them more confidence in their stroke. But it's not because they're making use of the information the stick feeds back.
-Andrew
Flex said:
at which the "deflection" can be changed by your stroke timing, learning where the shafts collapes at the point of collision. hollowing it out is ( IMO ) isn't good. takes mass away from 1 object and then hitting another mass which is compact creates deflection. however, it is possiable to cancel out deflection with stroke timing, but not entirerly
Ok...I'll fess up. Once while experimenting madly searching for something a bit extra...
I took one of my perfectly good, one piece, solid, hard rock maple shafts...and drilled out about 8 inches out of the front leaving a 5/16 hole. I then threaded in a tenon and replaced the tip & ferrule. Hey the 314's are done that way for a reason, so surely now with all of that front end mass lightened...it must hit wonderful! WRONG...it played like crap. The shaft played superb before my little experiment...and like total crap afterward. It is hard to describe but the best way is that it made the fresh Moori feel like it was made of cork. It now is doing a superb job of holding up a tomato plant for my wife. I mean not only did it hit like trash...but there was no benefit in cueball action or control. I also tried the old Harvey Martin trick about adding metal weight to the front just behind the ferrule. Harvey believed that the extra weight made the tip stay on the ball a bit longer providing benefit. It hit like crap as well, and I then even tried it with a j/b tip. It actually broke really well...but it would not jump...not even a little bit. So much for that experiment as well. Moral to the story is that if you take a solid shaft blank, turn it down in small increments over the proper period of time, install a quality tip & ferrule...ITS REALLY HARD TO BEAT!!!! In the back of my mind I keep hearing the ghosts of Mosconi & Balabushka say..."you did what to that shaft son!" Hmmm...maybe if I put a black or red dot on one of my shafts it will play better...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
I took one of my perfectly good, one piece, solid, hard rock maple shafts...and drilled out about 8 inches out of the front leaving a 5/16 hole. I then threaded in a tenon and replaced the tip & ferrule. Hey the 314's are done that way for a reason, so surely now with all of that front end mass lightened...it must hit wonderful! WRONG...it played like crap. The shaft played superb before my little experiment...and like total crap afterward. It is hard to describe but the best way is that it made the fresh Moori feel like it was made of cork. It now is doing a superb job of holding up a tomato plant for my wife. I mean not only did it hit like trash...but there was no benefit in cueball action or control. I also tried the old Harvey Martin trick about adding metal weight to the front just behind the ferrule. Harvey believed that the extra weight made the tip stay on the ball a bit longer providing benefit. It hit like crap as well, and I then even tried it with a j/b tip. It actually broke really well...but it would not jump...not even a little bit. So much for that experiment as well. Moral to the story is that if you take a solid shaft blank, turn it down in small increments over the proper period of time, install a quality tip & ferrule...ITS REALLY HARD TO BEAT!!!! In the back of my mind I keep hearing the ghosts of Mosconi & Balabushka say..."you did what to that shaft son!" Hmmm...maybe if I put a black or red dot on one of my shafts it will play better...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!