Ronnie O'Sullivan's Views On Cues

Scaramouche

Scaramouche

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
O'Sullivan, nicknamed 'The Rocket', said: "Last year I used a new cue for the Masters. I only had it for two hours and I managed to win the tournament but I didn't really like the cue if I'm honest.

"So I'm not a buyer of that philosophy that the cue is the be-all and end-all. I used to be because I got so attached to one cue that I couldn't do without it.

"If you start relying on equipment to dictate how you play then you become attached to it and that is a weakness."

Source
http://www.sportinglife.com/snooker..._NAME=snooker/10/01/05/SNOOKER_OSullivan.html
 
Scaramouche said:
O'Sullivan, nicknamed 'The Rocket', said: "Last year I used a new cue for the Masters. I only had it for two hours and I managed to win the tournament but I didn't really like the cue if I'm honest.

"So I'm not a buyer of that philosophy that the cue is the be-all and end-all. I used to be because I got so attached to one cue that I couldn't do without it.

"If you start relying on equipment to dictate how you play then you become attached to it and that is a weakness."

Source
http://www.sportinglife.com/snooker..._NAME=snooker/10/01/05/SNOOKER_OSullivan.html
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but in American pool you have to be so much more accurate than you do in snooker, where you could knock those short little shots into those big bucket pockets just as easily with a spaghetti noodle or a broom handle.

Oh wait, that's the opposite of the truth.

What I meant was I guess that puts the obsession with cues in a little perspective, doesn't it?

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
That's all well and good, but in American pool you have to be so much more accurate than you do in snooker, where you could knock those short little shots into those big bucket pockets just as easily with a spaghetti noodle or a broom handle.

Oh wait, that's the opposite of the truth.

What I meant was I guess that puts the obsession with cues in a little perspective, doesn't it?

-Andrew
Click to expand...

OR...

Perhaps a player Steve Davis describes as a 'genius' at Snooker
can play rather well even with a cue he hasn't used a lot<yet>.

But I guess that would be just too simple.

Dale
 
Or better yet, if you stay on or very close to the vertical center of the cueball, the cues deflection is not an issue. Snooker players dont use all the excessive sidespin that pool players seem to use.
Chuck
 
RiverCity said:
Or better yet, if you stay on or very close to the vertical center of the cueball, the cues deflection is not an issue. Snooker players dont use all the excessive sidespin that pool players seem to use.
Chuck
Click to expand...

I think that's a myth. When putting together a break staying at the black end of the table, the players play for an angle where they can cut a ball in, roll straight down to the end cushion, and then come back up for that same angle on a different ball, controlling the direction the CB comes off the end rail with sidespin. More often than not when they play these shots, you don't know which red they're playing for until you see which way the CB makes its sharp turn off the rail. It's not a subtle use of side.

In truth, I think the issue here is that most snooker cues have very similar amounts of deflection, since they're almost all made of ash, and they almost all have brass ferrules of about the same length, and they almost all have about the same tip diameter (about 9 mm). And the other properties of a cue that are oh-so-important to many American ppol-players (balance point, weight, joint pin, and the "hit" whatever that means), are pretty much irrelevant to whether one can play their best with a cue or not.

-Andrew
 
pdcue said:
OR...

Perhaps a player Steve Davis describes as a 'genius' at Snooker
can play rather well even with a cue he hasn't used a lot<yet>.

But I guess that would be just too simple.

Dale
Click to expand...

That's the thing, this isn't a matter of "rather well". It's a matter of shooting straighter than a field of, quite literally, the world's straightest shooters. The difference between making a very difficult and demanding pot 91.2% and 93.4% of the time makes the difference in these events. There are guys who could outshoot anyone on this continent, in terms of accuracy, by a country mile, who can't make the tour over there. Also consider that every tournament they play is a world championship, basically, since all the best snooker players in the world play in all the events.

So Ronnie dominating that type of field isn't a matter of playing rather well. It's a matter of playing the game at a "world champion" level.

I think the fact that he can do it with a cue he hasn't even gotten acquainted with, says a lot about exactly how important the cue is.

-Andrew
 
he plays snooker so i don't take what he says real serious. those snooker guys don't pay any attention to their equipment (at least from what i've heard)
 
Did someone say snooker players don't use a lot of 'side'?

That's a myth you can disprove by watching 10 minutes of world-class play. Easy enough.
 
poolplayer2093 said:
he plays snooker so i don't take what he says real serious. those snooker guys don't pay any attention to their equipment (at least from what i've heard)
Click to expand...

Not true at all. If he had watched the shows on BBC where the pros kept talking about how amazing that was, you would see the statement above is far from the truth.
 
haminh said:
Not true at all. If he had watched the shows on BBC where the pros kept talking about how amazing that was, you would see the statement above is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

i'm biased so don't take me too serious. i don't trust cops or brits. been that way my whole life
 
Scaramouche said:
O'Sullivan, nicknamed 'The Rocket', said: "Last year I used a new cue for the Masters. I only had it for two hours and I managed to win the tournament but I didn't really like the cue if I'm honest.

"So I'm not a buyer of that philosophy that the cue is the be-all and end-all. I used to be because I got so attached to one cue that I couldn't do without it.

"If you start relying on equipment to dictate how you play then you become attached to it and that is a weakness."

Source
http://www.sportinglife.com/snooker..._NAME=snooker/10/01/05/SNOOKER_OSullivan.html
Click to expand...


My take on the meaning of this is different and really has nothing to do with cues, but a lot to do with change.

This quote's meaning would change a lot and I think taken more accurately if he worded it a little differently. For example, if he had said:


"If you start relying on equipment to dictate how (well) you play then you become attached to it and that is a weakness."

I think the point that he's making is any player can get so mentally caught up and even dependent upon our familiar equipment that our play is affected negatively when we have to adapt to varying conditions. In other words, when we have unfamiliar equipment, we talk ourselves out of playing good.

This can go beyond cues - it can be tables, lighting, cloth, pocket cut, rails, etc.

This is actually a pretty good insight into a winning mental attitude that allows a player to perform well while coping with the uncertainty of new and unfamiliar conditions.


Chris
 
Last edited:
haminh said:
Not true at all. If he had watched the shows on BBC where the pros kept talking about how amazing that was, you would see the statement above is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

Right, in some cases they are even more fussy about their equipment. If anything is slightly wrong with the table during a tournament (rails, cloth) you hear about it all week long.

As far as cues go, many of these players have been playing with the same cue since they started, I think Shaun Murphy is one of those guys. Others since they started on tour. I remember Alain Robidoux's cue got smashed by a cue maker, which caused a drop in form simply because he couldn't get used to a new cue.
 
Andrew Manning said:
In truth, I think the issue here is that most snooker cues have very similar amounts of deflection, since they're almost all made of ash, and they almost all have brass ferrules of about the same length, and they almost all have about the same tip diameter (about 9 mm). And the other properties of a cue that are oh-so-important to many American ppol-players (balance point, weight, joint pin, and the "hit" whatever that means), are pretty much irrelevant to whether one can play their best with a cue or not.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Andrew, I have to disagree there, as far as snooker cues having similar amounts of deflection, i'd say just the opposite. In my opinion theres only one player who could adapt to a cue as quickly as Ronnie did, and thats Ronnie.
2 things about Ronnie
1. Dont pay too much attention to what he says, his opinions are changable.
2. He is the most talented snooker player, ever.
3. Whatever he says, he genuinely loves the game.
 
Years ago while my late friend, the great Pat Howey, was living in Rochester, I arrived at the pool room sans cue. Picked a house cue out of the rack. During one of the following games of 14.1, ran over 100. With a house cue. What does that say about all the fuss over expensive custom cues. Specially those with so called technically advanced multi-layered shafts with tips whose names can't be pronounced. Is it you, or the equipment? I'm with Ronnie!

Lyn
 
TATE said:
My take on the meaning of this is different and really has nothing to do with cues, but a lot to do with change.

This quote's meaning would change a lot and I think taken more accurately if he worded it a little differently. For example, if he had said:


"If you start relying on equipment to dictate how (well) you play then you become attached to it and that is a weakness."

I think the point that he's making is any player can get so mentally caught up and even dependent upon our familiar equipment that our play is affected negatively when we have to adapt to varying conditions. In other words, when we have unfamiliar equipment, we talk ourselves out of playing good.

This can go beyond cues - it can be tables, lighting, cloth, pocket cut, rails, etc.

This is actually a pretty good insight into a winning mental attitude that allows a player to perform well while coping with the uncertainty of new and unfamiliar conditions.


Chris
Click to expand...

I think that this is absolutely right. It takes some time to get used to a cue, and until you do, you cannot perform to the best of your ability. But IMHO sticking to the same cue beyond that point does not confer any advantage. All it does is make you dependant on that cue, so that if it gets lost or broke you can be in real trouble.

BTW, contrary to what an earlier poster suggested, although most snooker cues are ash, brass ferrule & joint, 9mm diameter etc, they do play very differently.

In fact, you don't even need to play a shot to know the difference: When I was playing snooker regularly, both my playing partner and myself used a 3/4-jointed ash & ebony cue, same dimensions and roughly the same weight. From a distance, you couldn't tell them apart. But one time I picked up his cue instead of mine by mistake, and almost dropped it in shock - it felt so weird! That was back in my cue-dependent days ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top