Lets talk about Butts

B

breakshot

Collector/Serious player
Silver Member
I've been thinking about what makes up "the ultimate" playing cue, Now this is all my theory- so I could be all wrong, but I want to get other opinions. It seems to me that you would want a cue that resonates like it was one piece of wood. But in the real world, hauling around a one piece cue would be cumbersome- so this is obviously why we have 2 piece cues.
-
--Most Shafts- to my knowledge are built from one piece of wood
-
--Most Butts- to my knowledge are built from at least 3 seperate pieces of wood(forearm/handle/heel) that are bolted or screwed together. Now this is what doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to take 3 seperate pieces and try to line them up to make them perfectly straight and add weight to the butt with the bolts that attach the 3 seperate pieces. It seems to me that the butt could not resonate as one piece of wood. It would be three pieces of wood with two or more concentrations of weight(the bolts)- all resonating differently as you strike the cue.:scratchhead:
-
-Other things that I think might be potential problems are:
-multiple pieces screwed together with flat face joints would affect the strength of the butt
-alignment of the 3 pieces would be difficult, especially with structural points and I would imagine that the alignment of the joint pin and the shaft is more difficult.
-
-All of this makes me wonder- why not play with a very simple one piece butt. It seems like all of the work that goes into a elaborate custom butt just complicates the playability? :scratchhead:
 
There are lots of reasons for making the butt out of more than 1 piece of wood. Some of it is asthetics, some of it is stability, and some of it is weight distribution and so on.
Neil
 
I can understand aestetics- but if they hurt the playability of the cue - is it worth it.:(
-
-Stability- I can agree - only if the pieces are smehow inter-woven together, but from what I understand most custom cues are joined either with a flat face joint or with a simple(male /female union)- neither method in my opinion increases stability over a single piece of wood- how much more stable can it be?
-
-Weight distrubution- I totally agree with you on this point, but wouldn't it make more sense to add weight to the exterior of the cue. Years ago I saw that Corey Deuel stuck lead weights right to the finish of a viking cue that he was using.- Considering this it makes sense to me to somehow sleeve the heavier/dense wood over the cue to distribute the weight where you would want it.:smile:
 
breakshot said:
I've been thinking about what makes up "the ultimate" playing cue, Now this is all my theory- so I could be all wrong, but I want to get other opinions. It seems to me that you would want a cue that resonates like it was one piece of wood. But in the real world, hauling around a one piece cue would be cumbersome- so this is obviously why we have 2 piece cues.
-
--Most Shafts- to my knowledge are built from one piece of wood
-
--Most Butts- to my knowledge are built from at least 3 seperate pieces of wood(forearm/handle/heel) that are bolted or screwed together. Now this is what doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want to take 3 seperate pieces and try to line them up to make them perfectly straight and add weight to the butt with the bolts that attach the 3 seperate pieces. It seems to me that the butt could not resonate as one piece of wood. It would be three pieces of wood with two or more concentrations of weight(the bolts)- all resonating differently as you strike the cue.:scratchhead:
-
-Other things that I think might be potential problems are:
-multiple pieces screwed together with flat face joints would affect the strength of the butt
-alignment of the 3 pieces would be difficult, especially with structural points and I would imagine that the alignment of the joint pin and the shaft is more difficult.
-
-All of this makes me wonder- why not play with a very simple one piece butt. It seems like all of the work that goes into a elaborate custom butt just complicates the playability? :scratchhead:
Click to expand...

Here are a couple of Butts that will answer all your questions, and if the price is right they can be at your house in an hour. You will know when they get close you will here their hoves on the pavement.

big_butts.jpg

Take care:D
 
manwon said:
Here are a couple of Butts that will answer all your questions
Click to expand...

You know that brutal scene that horrifies yet you cannot seem to look away from it. Yeah....
 
if u use a one pc butt. the balance point would probably suck...alot of people core the wood, depending on what kind it is.

also 1pc butt may warp over time easier than the 3 shorter pcs.

i havent hit with a well made cue that had a 3 pc butt that didnt hit better than a housecue. predators p2 is close to one pc i guess u can say. but that definately isnt going to resonate like a one pc either.

also to cut points i think u have to have a free forearm. im not a cuemaker so i dunno.
 
chazdillon said:
if u use a one pc butt. the balance point would probably suck...alot of people core the wood, depending on what kind it is.

also 1pc butt may warp over time easier than the 3 shorter pcs.

i havent hit with a well made cue that had a 3 pc butt that didnt hit better than a housecue. predators p2 is close to one pc i guess u can say. but that definately isnt going to resonate like a one pc either.

also to cut points i think u have to have a free forearm. im not a cuemaker so i dunno.
Click to expand...

-
-
-I agree the weight distrubution on a one piece would suck , that's why I thought adding weight appropriately would be beneficial- so when you say alot of cue makers core the wood are you saying they start with a one piece butt and sleeve other wood over the core.
--
-as for cutting points, I'm sure that if they wanted- they could cut the points in a longer blank, it shouldn't be that hard. But I do know that some cuemakers find it easier to purchase their forearms premade by other cuemakers.
 
Manwon, i almost hit the bad rep button. That picture is terrible. Now i cant look at this thread again until it gets to 2 pages.
 
looking for some advice and explanation

-I would love to get a few of the great cuemakers that are on AZ to give me their views on the playing viability of a one piece butt.:smile:
-
-I would also welcome some of the math and physics majors response as well:smile:
 
I can understand aestetics- but if they hurt the playability of the cue - is it worth it.:(
Done right and with two woods complimenting each other, they hit better.
Kinda like a guitar body.

-Stability- I can agree - only if the pieces are smehow inter-woven together, but from what I understand most custom cues are joined either with a flat face joint or with a simple(male /female union)- neither method in my opinion increases stability over a single piece of wood- how much more stable can it be?
Much more stable b/c you can pick up 12-14" pieces with straight grain a lot more easily than 29" long piece with consistent grain. Plus the longer the wood, the more likely it will twist or warp.

-
-Weight distrubution- I totally agree with you on this point, but wouldn't it make more sense to add weight to the exterior of the cue. Years ago I saw that Corey Deuel stuck lead weights right to the finish of a viking cue that he was using.- Considering this it makes sense to me to somehow sleeve the heavier/dense wood over the cue to distribute the weight where you would want it.:smile:
Imagine if you need an ounce of weight after you install the pin. It'd be better imo to add them in 2 to three different spots to offset the balance change.
 
OK, you asked for a cuemaker, here I am (since 1986). 1st off the MOST important parts of the cue are the tip, ferrule & shaft. These 3 things affect the HIT, more than anything else. So in my opinion, what ever you do to the butt secton plays only a small part, in the HIT. Next, the RESONATION you talk about, only has to reach your gripping hand. You can't feel anything that happens PAST that. So we now have a shaft & a forearm & a few inches of handle. That joint of handle to forearm is glued & doweled to give maximum strength & playability , along with transfering a little weight forward. I do make 1 piece butt cues. They are made of Bacote. That wood seems to be very stable (no warpage) & cheep. In my opinion a sectioned piece of Bacote, plays better & is better balanced that a 1 piece butt, of the same material...JER
 
Last edited:
JoeyInCali said:
I can understand aestetics- but if they hurt the playability of the cue - is it worth it.:(
Done right and with two woods complimenting each other, they hit better.
Kinda like a guitar body.
-But what is the definition of "done right"- it would seem to me that this is a very true statement, but from what I know the majority of cues being built are assembled with parts screwed together with flat faced or male /female joints- to me this doesn't seem like it would help the resonance. Maybe if the pieces were threaded or cored- I dont know?:confused:

-Stability- I can agree - only if the pieces are smehow inter-woven together, but from what I understand most custom cues are joined either with a flat face joint or with a simple(male /female union)- neither method in my opinion increases stability over a single piece of wood- how much more stable can it be?
Much more stable b/c you can pick up 12-14" pieces with straight grain a lot more easily than 29" long piece with consistent grain. Plus the longer the wood, the more likely it will twist or warp.
-I understand and agree that shorter pieces are easier to find with a straight grain, but I have also seen alot of bananas created out of 3 different pieces of wood all moving at different times and at different directions. As for the long wood being more likely to twist or warp. I think that "IF" the wood is dried properly and if the wood is cut in multiple passes and if close observation is paid to the movement of the wood as it is being cut on each pass. Then I think the wood would be as stable as possible. There are many 29" long shaft blanks that are straight grain that never move. But overall I agree with the theory, but only if the pieces are assembled so that they are stronger than the wood was originally.

-
-Weight distrubution- I totally agree with you on this point, but wouldn't it make more sense to add weight to the exterior of the cue. Years ago I saw that Corey Deuel stuck lead weights right to the finish of a viking cue that he was using.- Considering this it makes sense to me to somehow sleeve the heavier/dense wood over the cue to distribute the weight where you would want it.:smile:
Imagine if you need an ounce of weight after you install the pin. It'd be better imo to add them in 2 to three different spots to offset the balance change.
Click to expand...
- but wouldnt it be better still to add weight by things like structural points that would also give you a slow increase in the weight as you go farther back on the cue, the points would also add the the structural stability of the wood? It would seem to me that adding concentrations of weight in specific spots would affect how the mass acts when it is striking the cue ball ( one weight trying to catch up with the next and next and so on )- Im not a physics or math major so correct me if i'm not even thinking about this correctly?:confused:
 
I think you should go build a cue, and you'll understand. Seriously, i'm not trying to be a smart ass. There's just a ton of knowledge that cannot be put into words on a forum, and if could be will seem like quantum physics if you don't have first hand experience to guide your understanding.

I do indeed build one piece butts. I like using purpleheart, maple & shedua. The maple & shedua need a lot of weight added & positioned properly to get a nice balance. The purpleheart doesn't need much but still requires a lot of extra work beyond the simplistic theory of building a one piece butt. And more important than the extra work, the cues don't have the energy & life of a 3-piece butt. With a 3-piece butt I can combine different woods that when combined give a much more powerful & lively energy than just one alone. For instance, put a purpleheart forearm on a birdseye maple handle & you'll get a firm, crisp hit with enough give to juice the ball without having to power stroke. A single piece of purpleheart would be too stiff & hard, like playing with a 2x4. A single piece of maple would feel like a dud. Combined with the correct proportion, they give a perfect medium. Again, a one piece butt CAN be made to play great & feel great, but there's a lot of work to it that you don't see on the outside. When I build a solid purpleheart cue, I have to be extra picky with shafts, choosing the shafts that have a little softer & lower tone, with a little more flex than my typical shafts. With a one piece maple butt, I have to use the very stiff & rigid shafts with high tap tone. Either case, I have to choose shafts by weight that can aid in reaching the desired balance point. Without correct balance, no cue will play well no matter how great it is or who built it. And without a ton of shafts in finish size to choose from, of different qualities & different sources, then it'll be very tough for a builder to pull off a one piece butt that compares well to a 3-piece. It's a science. It's complicated. This is barely scratching the surface.

The best way I can think of to explain it is that it's easier & more efficient to build a great hitting 3-piece butt than it is to build a solid one piece butt. Full splice like sneakies are right in the middle, best of both worlds & it's very easy to build a good hitting cue with the right full splice. One that comes to mind is bocote butt into maple front. It's a combo that's tough to screw up. My advice to any newer builder is to start with & use bocote into maple sneaky blanks until you learn enough to expand. This way even your first few junky "learning" cues will still play nice. I don't reccomend a one piece butt to any builder that doesn't have extensive knowledge of wood, balancing a cue & has a healthy stock of shafts to choose from. It's not difficult, and there's no parts to glue together in joinery, but it requires some experience & knowledge to make it comparable to a 3-piece butt. There's no written science or mathematical formulas. Experience in failure is the only way to find success on a repeatable scale. There are a lot more things that don't work than there are things that do. Until you know the things that don't work, you'll never hone in on exactly what does. I hope this helps a little. Again, if you were to try building one, you'd already know the answers to your questions. It's fun & interesting. Good question, tough to answer.
 
Richardson said:
Manwon, i almost hit the bad rep button. That picture is terrible. Now i cant look at this thread again until it gets to 2 pages.
Click to expand...

If you want to bad rep someone for posting a photo of two ladies at the beach you have some problems, the human body in all forms is a thing of beauty.

Oh and by the way, I bet you down loaded a copy for your personal files Player!!!!!!!!!!!!;)
 
Warp and weight (total and balance point) is reason. With different woods, total weight and balance point can customized. One piece is more likely to badly warp ---- you ever look at a batch of 2 x 4's (a lot of warpage).
 
in international snooker you see full spliced sticks no joints they carry them in long cases these sticks hit extremly well
you are now starting to see the rebirth of the full splice sticks the reason is they are hard to beat as far as the hit goes. cue makers all over the country are doing full splice conversions . I guess balabuska, palmer, paridise to name a few had somthing going .



1 stroke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top