I can't stand when people ruin fullsplice cues!!!

ideologist said:
I can't stand when people cut rings and handles into fullsplice cues and then say they play so amazingly!

Blah!

:yikes:
Click to expand...

So how do you feel when someone does improve the play of a spliced cue
by cutting it? I've done it many times.

The magic "hit" of a cue is determined by many factors. No particular type
of construction can guarantee best results.

It is unusual to find myself trapped on the same side of an argument as
John, but he is dead on about the blind test - IMHO - YMMV

Dale(impersonating Johnny mnemonic)
 
pdcue said:
So how do you feel when someone does improve the play of a spliced cue
by cutting it? I've done it many times.

The magic "hit" of a cue is determined by many factors. No particular type
of construction can guarantee best results.

It is unusual to find myself trapped on the same side of an argument as
John, but he is dead on about the blind test - IMHO - YMMV

Dale(impersonating Johnny mnemonic)
Click to expand...

:-) hate can blind a person.
 
ideologist said:
I can't stand when people cut rings and handles into fullsplice cues and then say they play so amazingly!

Blah!

:yikes:
Click to expand...

Well there have been a ton of titlist conversions with rings above the wrap and people always make the statement about how great titlist cues play. Of course they are referring to the one piece cue, not the one they just had butchered. Now Balabushka, would cue Spain splices and ring it, he also would use that extension for weight distribution and many times his "A" joint would be under the wrap, not necessarily at the handle/forearm area.

What people fail to realize the that the construction of the A joint has influence on the cues playability. We have seen under x-ray some A joints that are less than optimal. Some have big glue voids, threads that don't look right, some have no shoulder or seat.

But almost all full splice cue conversions will get an extension piece because as it has been already mentioned, a lot are just not made for doing "full splice" conversions.

Would you notice? I wouldn't bet on it.

JV
 
JohnPT said:
Do fullsplice cues make you play like a champion?
Click to expand...


Of course not, thanks for the thought, though... I still have an appreciation for the craft. When people take classic sullsplices and cut rings right into the splice, it breaks my heart. A fiberglass cue with a heavy dead steel joint can pocket balls just fine, but it doesn't feel as enjoyable. That melodic response in a cue butt is achieved with extremely minimal construction. One-piece butts are great for the same reason. When you shove tons of metal into a cue butt, you're putting in plenty of barriers to stop that feeling.


JB Cases said:
I'd bet against that. Shall we set up a test at the SBE. I will bet dinner that out of 50 random people not five of them can tell which is the full splice and which is not if we have say three of each cues and a blind test.

I understand that there must be differences but I doubt the average player can feel them.
Click to expand...


I'm interested in something of the sort, sure. I'll shoot you a message to set up controls and specifics. I'll be there to sweat your match anyway. I'm a vegetarian, though, so I hope you'll go easy on me and not stick me with a double surf-and-turf when my winnings are some pasta. ;)


pdcue said:
So how do you feel when someone does improve the play of a spliced cue
by cutting it? I've done it many times.

The magic "hit" of a cue is determined by many factors. No particular type
of construction can guarantee best results.

It is unusual to find myself trapped on the same side of an argument as
John, but he is dead on about the blind test - IMHO - YMMV

Dale(impersonating Johnny mnemonic)
Click to expand...


I'm totally in agreement with the thought that there is no guarantee. But, when you take a Titlist, hack the splice with a ring, and say "it is the most amazing Titlist ever," I certainly roll my eyes. I'm very open to this test. Even if it just means blindfolding me and proving me wrong, so be it. :embarrassed2:


classiccues said:
Well there have been a ton of titlist conversions with rings above the wrap and people always make the statement about how great titlist cues play. Of course they are referring to the one piece cue, not the one they just had butchered. Now Balabushka, would cue Spain splices and ring it, he also would use that extension for weight distribution and many times his "A" joint would be under the wrap, not necessarily at the handle/forearm area.

What people fail to realize the that the construction of the A joint has influence on the cues playability. We have seen under x-ray some A joints that are less than optimal. Some have big glue voids, threads that don't look right, some have no shoulder or seat.

But almost all full splice cue conversions will get an extension piece because as it has been already mentioned, a lot are just not made for doing "full splice" conversions.

Would you notice? I wouldn't bet on it.

JV
Click to expand...


You may be right, in that well-crafted cues can transfer the feeling desired very well. However, pound for pound, fullsplice butts that extend through the handle are more consistent in transferring that feeling, in my experience. I am open to arranging that sort of test as John described and embarrassing myself from there. :groucho:
 
Pretty sure if I got a mix of full splice and these 'ruined' cues, and had people hit balls blindfolded,
they couldn't tell the difference.

Honestly, you guys think the arrangement of the inlays is the reason you missed a ball?
 
I'll bet my short splice Keith plays as good or better, against ANY full splice in a blind test.

Full splice is cool, and I respect the talent envolved to make ANY cue play well.

A full splice cue built like shit, has no advantage over any other cue built like shit.
 
The test

While I feel like taking 50 random people and having them try both types of cue out, I disagree with it being 50 random people. I feel they at least should be actual players. You could blindfold someone and hand them a cue and they would be more focused on other factors whereas players actually know what they are trying to accomplish. Furthermore the OP never once actually stated people aren't allowed to do what want with their cues. He simply stated his opinion of certain things. I personally have played with both and I truly have felt a significant difference. As for rounded points... Hideous! Hehehe
 
I'd like to see a bonafide test using knowledgeable participants. But each maker makes his cues a little different with different tapers, etc, making them each play a little different that the others... even though they are full splice. It would be tough to get a good test, but my money would be on fs being preferred overall.
 
JB Cases said:
I'd bet against that. Shall we set up a test at the SBE. I will bet dinner that out of 50 random people not five of them can tell which is the full splice and which is not if we have say three of each cues and a blind test.

I understand that there must be differences but I doubt the average player can feel them.
Click to expand...

If we painted them all black, I would bet that a Scruggs sneaky pete will get the most votes as the best hitting cue .:eek::thumbup:
You'll have to weed out APA 3's . Maybe APA 5 and better only ?

A cue maker has arrived when he can make a sectional cue hit as good as his sneaky pete with a good shaft.
 
JoeyInCali said:
If we painted them all black, I would bet that a Scruggs sneaky pete will get the most votes as the best hitting cue .:eek::thumbup:
You'll have to weed out APA 3's . Maybe APA 5 and better only ?

A cue maker has arrived when he can make a sectional cue hit as good as his sneaky pete with a good shaft.
Click to expand...

That's how it was in the test Robin and his partners did. But I wouldn't bet a quarter on any particular cue getting the most votes for "best hitting" in any series of identical blind tests. I think that it would be different brands.

The thing that is relevant to the thread is that people thought the best hitting cue had a stainless steel joint when it was in fact a Scruggs sneaky.

Also players could not even recognize their OWN cues nor cues made by the brand that sponsored them.

And these were the best players at the time.
 
JB Cases said:
I'd bet against that. Shall we set up a test at the SBE. I will bet dinner that out of 50 random people not five of them can tell which is the full splice and which is not if we have say three of each cues and a blind test.

I understand that there must be differences but I doubt the average player can feel them.
Click to expand...

John,

I like the test idea, but selecting 50 *random* people doesn't really prove anything except that on average most people have no clue about much of anything. What would make more sense is to round up 50 people that believe they can tell the difference, and then find out if they really can.

KMRUNOUT
 
Here is my Butchered 1940's Oak Titlist

I bought it and had it done exactly the way I wanted it converted with a replica sticker added (AKA Chopped Up). It plays very well!

Wedge
 

Attachments

  • DSC02470.jpg
    DSC02470.jpg
    96.7 KB · Views: 220
  • DSC02472.jpg
    DSC02472.jpg
    99.3 KB · Views: 212
  • DSC02471.jpg
    DSC02471.jpg
    88 KB · Views: 221
JB Cases said:
That's how it was in the test Robin and his partners did. But I wouldn't bet a quarter on any particular cue getting the most votes for "best hitting" in any series of identical blind tests. I think that it would be different brands.

The thing that is relevant to the thread is that people thought the best hitting cue had a stainless steel joint when it was in fact a Scruggs sneaky.

Also players could not even recognize their OWN cues nor cues made by the brand that sponsored them.

And these were the best players at the time.
Click to expand...

+1

When you're right...

On a related note of the even bigger picture:

I thought we all understood loooooong ago that it is pointless to even
discuss which cue "hits" or "plays" better.
This is such a personal, and subjective opinion there is no right answer.

Other than, the cue YOU think plays best, does play best, for YOU.
But, only for you. Conversely, it doesn't matter if fifty top players and
fifty C and D players think fifty different cues play better than the one
you prefer - it is still the best cue for you.

Now to try to extend a meaningless argument to a whole class of
construction style for cues, is well...

FWIW - IMHO anyone who still thinks there is some kind of holy grail
of cue playability - just hasn't hit balls with enough different cues yet.

Dale(who thinks he should start insisting that true butterfly SPLICE cues
are the only ones worth a dime)
 
Wedge said:
I bought it and had it done exactly the way I wanted it converted with a replica sticker added (AKA Chopped Up). It plays very well!

Wedge
Click to expand...

I love that cue. I'm sure it plays also. I don't think it's ruined or chopped up at all. My only complaint is that I feel that a cue with Willie Hoppe's name on it should have a hoppe ring in the butt. But I feel all cues should have a hoppe ring
 
JB Cases said:
That's how it was in the test Robin and his partners did. But I wouldn't bet a quarter on any particular cue getting the most votes for "best hitting" in any series of identical blind tests. I think that it would be different brands.

The thing that is relevant to the thread is that people thought the best hitting cue had a stainless steel joint when it was in fact a Scruggs sneaky.

Also players could not even recognize their OWN cues nor cues made by the brand that sponsored them.

And these were the best players at the time.
Click to expand...

I would like to think I could identify my cue by the hit. If nothing else just by the sound it makes. Full splice cues are the best. I had mine made to feel like a one piece cue and it does. SS radial pin and a solid ivory joint. If you've never tried that joint/pin combo I strongly recommend it
 
I think it is a shame that so many jumped to the "the hit is fine" mindset.

I didn't say the hit is superior, since 'hit' is meaningless. It doesn't play better, either.

It does offer a unique feeling and is a work of art in itself. Especially the old Brunswick cues. Screwing metal into an all wooden cue is a shame. Everyone likes their flavor best, and it's just a shame that fullsplice cues are hacked up.
 
KMRUNOUT said:
John,

I like the test idea, but selecting 50 *random* people doesn't really prove anything except that on average most people have no clue about much of anything. What would make more sense is to round up 50 people that believe they can tell the difference, and then find out if they really can.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

By random I meant randomly selected from SBE attendees who play pool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top