pool cue shaft/butt weight ratio

E

evergruven

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
so I'm been surveying a few different cues spec-wise
and have noticed that when the shaft is heavier
the cue *feels* heavier
regardless of whether or not that's actually the case
for instance
I have one cue that weighs 19.7, with a shaft/butt weight ratio of 22/78
another cue I have weighs 19.5, but feel waay heavier
the ratio on that one is 30/70
I tested a few others, and arrived at the same conclusion

if anybody else's gotten so nerdy, can y'all relate, or ?

additionally, is there a shaft/butt weight ratio that you know you like/don't like? *why/why not?
 
I have never done the math like you.....but I have spent some time finding the balance point on my cues....which may be what you are truly seeking.
 
This is a redundant explanation about weight ratios that I have explained many times, often much to the consternation of others.
There’s many things that go into a pool cue’s anatomy which others more knowledgeable than myself can elaborate about better.

I am going to limit this post to weight ratios of the shaft and butt. There are expert cue-makers that may disagree or agree with this.
All I know is from trial and error experimentation, in addition to conversations I’ve had with reputable cue-makers over many years.

It seems like the best cues generally stick to shafts that are between 20% & 24% of the playing weight. This naturally relies on the
cue in question not having a heavy weight bolt in the butt. That is just dead weight that can tangibly influence the cue’s weight ratio.

Keep in mind that flat faced and piloted steel joints contribute weight to the butt versus a flat faced wood cue joint. The brass receiver in
the cue shaft also adds weight to the shaft which affects the weight ratio. In general, unless you drop way below or above the weight ratio
range of 20-24%, say in the range of 17-18%, the joint type or brass receiver in the shaft should not be consequential or change the cue’s feel.

Now people are going to post their own thoughts about this but just examine the specifications on the best made pool cues over the years.
The shafts and cue butts are matched to fall within these weight parameters. Of course, picking a cue is a individual decision so to each
their own. But the best made cues from the top names in cue-making down through the years respected the weight ratio of butt & shaft.
 
Seaspook said:
I have never done the math like you.....but I have spent some time finding the balance point on my cues....which may be what you are truly seeking.
Click to expand...

hey 'spook, thanks for the shout back- I am on a quest for my ideal balance point!
that's actually a big part of what had me stumble onto the current cue aspect of conversation
but while related, I've found s/b weight ratio and balance point to not always align preference-wise
for example I have a cue that has a balance point that math-wise I should like
but because the shaft isn't that heavy, it's not my favorite feel
apparently, the butt weight leans more to the front of that cue section than the back
but I haven't done balance points for individual cue pieces

anyway, you're right- overall balance comfort is my end goal
what have you found that you like in that way?

@bava- I don't have any high-class cues, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that their ratios are what you claim
what's the science/thinking behind that, I wonder?
tradition? more?
maybe there's something to it..I would like to know what it is
but as you astutely point out, to each their own

there are many ways we can have a cue customized
I'm a big proponent that we should use so many options to our advantage
 
18.5-19" from butt is kinda neutral. Anything more forward or rearward would generally be considered front or rear heavy/weighted.
 
:rolleyes:Evergreen,

Take a close look at the cues of Pete Sr. & Jr. Tascarella, Gus & Barry Szamboti, George Balabushka, Joel Hercek, Bob Manzino, Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Stroud, Ed Prewitt, Paul Mottey, Richard Black, Randy Mobley, Tad Kohara, John Showman, Bob Owen, Jerry Rauenzahn. I’ll pause at this point because the list of top notch cue-makers is by no means a short one. Take the weight of the shaft and divide by the playing weight of the assembled cue. Or else take the playing weight of the cue and multiply by the decimal equivalent of 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24% to see what the target weight of the shaft should approximate. Sometimes you will see the shaft ratio turns out to be 19% but that’s more common with shafts smaller than 13 mm. The main point is matching the shaft weight and cue butt weight to produce the best hitting & feeling cue which we all know is subjective.

Now examine the actual shaft weights made by the best names in cue-making. Keep in mind that piloted shafts will tend to be slightly heavier, plus of course the shaft diameter will affect the weight ratio due to less mass on a smaller shaft than a full 13mm. The shafts generally made by the best cue-makers tend to follow the ratios I listed. That’s why you see high 3 ounce and low 4 ounce shafts on their cues. Just do the math and you’ll see this is their approach, although there might a few be variations that were unintended or else built that way at the customer’s specific request. The wood selection for cue shafts is very important and preserving the weight distribution of the assembled cue by building the two halves (cue butt & shafts) keeping weight proportionality in mind. Check out the weight ratios on the cues made by the great names in cue-making and invariably, these weight ratios have been used.



Matt B.
 
Bavafongoul said:
:rolleyes:Evergreen,

Take a close look at the cues of Pete Sr. & Jr. Tascarella, Gus & Barry Szamboti, George Balabushka, Joel Hercek, Bob Manzino, Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Stroud, Ed Prewitt, Paul Mottey, Richard Black, Randy Mobley, Tad Kohara, John Showman, Bob Owen, Jerry Rauenzahn. I’ll pause at this point because the list of top notch cue-makers is by no means a short one. Take the weight of the shaft and divide by the playing weight of the assembled cue. Or else take the playing weight of the cue and multiply by the decimal equivalent of 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24% to see what the target weight of the shaft should approximate. Sometimes you will see the shaft ratio turns out to be 19% but that’s more common with shafts smaller than 13 mm. The main point is matching the shaft weight and cue butt weight to produce the best hitting & feeling cue which we all know is subjective.

Now examine the actual shaft weights made by the best names in cue-making. Keep in mind that piloted shafts will tend to be slightly heavier, plus of course the shaft diameter will affect the weight ratio due to less mass on a smaller shaft than a full 13mm. The shafts generally made by the best cue-makers tend to follow the ratios I listed. That’s why you see high 3 ounce and low 4 ounce shafts on their cues. Just do the math and you’ll see this is their approach, although there might a few be variations that were unintended or else built that way at the customer’s specific request. The wood selection for cue shafts is very important and preserving the weight distribution of the assembled cue by building the two halves (cue butt & shafts) keeping weight proportionality in mind. Check out the weight ratios on the cues made by the great names in cue-making and invariably, these weight ratios have been used.



Matt B.
Click to expand...

hey matt, why the eye roll?
all I said was I don't doubt your findings and I agree with your quote
"Of course, picking a cue is a individual decision so to each
their own."
I also wondered aloud how all these whiz-bang cuemakers arrived at their dimensions?
any idea?
 
evergruven said:
@bava- I don't have any high-class cues, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that their ratios are what you claim
what's the science/thinking behind that, I wonder?
tradition? more?
Click to expand...
It’s probably just due to the common shape of a cue: fattest at the butt, narrowing more or less evenly all the way to the tip.

pj
chgo
 
evergruven said:
so I'm been surveying a few different cues spec-wise
and have noticed that when the shaft is heavier
the cue *feels* heavier
regardless of whether or not that's actually the case
for instance
I have one cue that weighs 19.7, with a shaft/butt weight ratio of 22/78
another cue I have weighs 19.5, but feel waay heavier
the ratio on that one is 30/70
I tested a few others, and arrived at the same conclusion

if anybody else's gotten so nerdy, can y'all relate, or ?

additionally, is there a shaft/butt weight ratio that you know you like/don't like? *why/why not?
Click to expand...

Bring your perfectly balanced custom made expensive cue and I will pull one off the wall and let’s play for some cash.
 
Just something else to throw into this mix- Ernie of Gina Cues stated in his long interview session that he believed that 4 ounces was the lower limit of really good playing shafts. Also, Steve Mizerak stated that he played with minimum 4 ounce shafts for straight pool and lighter shafts for 9 ball. So beyond balance point and shaft to butt ratios, some of the top players and cue makers simply think that certain weight shafts make sense for playability reasons.
Now we can add to that tips, ferrule materials, butt joint construction, butt wood selections, as other variables in a cue - some related to balance points and some not- but all subjectively considered for a custom cue selection. It's a great topic, even if revisited a thousand times - I am always interested in experienced comments on anything to do with cues ; as to me it will never cease to be a fascinating subject. Whenever I explain one of my custom cue nuances to a person completely uninitiated in the subject- there is usually complete amazement on their part as to the depth of detail that can go into the making of a cue!
Playing this game is a great hobby/passion in and of itself- I am so glad that I took it another level to get into the appreciation/ passion for the art of custom cue making and all of the additional enjoyment it brings to those who are really into the sport of billiards.
 
It was not my intention to send the impression of eye-rolling.
Heck, you in fact agreed that this might be so and in fact, you
even expressed not being surprised if it were so. There are so
many knowledgeable people on the Forum and cue-makers as
well. I’m pretty sure they have strong opinions that might coincide
with my remarks but they also might contradict what I’m saying.

The explanation offered in my prior post was simply to expand upon
this principle. There must be something to this because all of those
great cue-makers didn’t turn out cues with these weight ratios purely
by accident or as some odd coincidence. Jerry Rauenzahn underscored
this when I discussed having him build my pool cues and we discussed
butt weight and shafts. Anyway, as you previously acknowledged, it still
comes down to each their own and so play with what you like the most.
 
In the FS Section there’s a gorgeous Tascarella cue.
It ‘s offered by Captjoeb & exactly coincides with this.

It’s flat faced big pin ivory weighing 19.35 ozs with
shafts (all wood - no brass) that are 20% of the wt.

As someone else poignantly pointed out, Ginacue is
a renown name & Ernie knows his trade really well.
 
Last edited:
Brookeland Bill said:
Bring your perfectly balanced custom made expensive cue and I will pull one off the wall and let’s play for some cash.
Click to expand...

bill, you seem to have equated questing for knowledge with spending money
in reality, I'm probably one of the most economical pool players you've "met"
in my life, I've built my cue castle out of maybe 200 grains of sand
10 cues, and I've still shot more pool off the wall than out the wallet
I have no problem shooting with a house cue
in fact, using them has most helped me understand what I like best in a cue
and I've got no illusions that one cue is going to save my game
like mike alluded to, it's just fun stuff to think about, and play with
so if you can forgive me for expressing myself here in such a way
come up to seattle, I'd be glad to show you around:thumbup:
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It’s probably just due to the common shape of a cue: fattest at the butt, narrowing more or less evenly all the way to the tip.
Click to expand...
That geometry gives the shaft a little less than 1/4 the total physical volume of the cue, and that fraction of the total weight is 4+ ounces.

pj
chgo
 
It depends on the woods used in the forearm and handle of the butt. There is a reason you often see ebony nosed SW cues with butts near 17oz and shafts in the 3.3-3.4oz range. The ratio is lower than 20-24% but the cues are balanced well and play great.
 
I think a good balanced Cue is wonderful, its the one that you say how much does it weight? Because the weight is deceiving. Just feels good to play with.

Most Pool Cue be they Custom, or off the Wall will play great if the right player is using them. Indian V/s Arrow.

Someone like McDermott or Viking should come out with a line of Cues call MAGIC, should sell like wildfire in dry brush, if they had some top pro player using them to win.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
That geometry gives the shaft a little less than 1/4 the total physical volume of the cue, and that fraction of the total weight is 4+ ounces.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

thanks pat, that's a neat way of look at things

spliced said:
It depends on the woods used in the forearm and handle of the butt. There is a reason you often see ebony nosed SW cues with butts near 17oz and shafts in the 3.3-3.4oz range. The ratio is lower than 20-24% but the cues are balanced well and play great.
Click to expand...

good stuff here too, thanks

and thanks all for the replies-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top