Shaft taper for open bridge and closed bridge

[alstl]

I'm bored and when that happens I'm dangerous. I was thinking about the shaft taper on Strickland and Van Boening's cues, super long pro taper. They both use a closed bridge most of the time.

Does a more gradual taper work better for a player who uses an open bridge, or does it matter? I'm thinking the cue might tend to bounce off the open bridge more with a long pro taper. Am I full of it?

 

[ugotactionTX]

I know that Strickland uses a 20" Pro Taper and I had the chance to play with it when he was here in Dallas. It was very unusual(to me) but it played pretty darn good! Not sure what the taper is on SVB's cue I dont' think it's that long but I could be wrong. As to your question, It seems like it would depend on how "long" your stoke is and whether or not it was longer and the taper (as far as the bouncing) ie. hopkins vs bustamante. BTW I have no idea either...

 

[alstl]

I know that Strickland uses a 20" Pro Taper and I had the chance to play with it when he was here in Dallas. It was very unusual(to me) but it played pretty darn good! Not sure what the taper is on SVB's cue I dont' think it's that long but I could be wrong. As to your question, It seems like it would depend on how "long" your stoke is and whether or not it was longer and the taper (as far as the bouncing) ie. hopkins vs bustamante. BTW I have no idea either...

I'm not sure about Shane's new Diviney but somebody posted a picture of his old Runde Schon with a Southeast shaft and it looked like it had a long taper like Strickland's.

 

[KJ Cues]

It's desirable for the player with an open bridge to have a long stroke-zone on their shaft and conversely the European taper favors the closed bridge.
Extreme example; imagine a traffic cone resting in the 'open bridge'. As the cone is pushed forward, the 'tip' or front of the cone rises. If that drastic taper were flattened out, more like a rod, the tip would not rise so dramatically.
The 'closed bridge' encompasses the entire perimeter of the shaft so the tip will not rise as in the previous example no matter how steep the taper.
Just food for thought.

 

[alstl]

It's desirable for the player with an open bridge to have a long stroke-zone on their shaft and conversely the European taper favors the closed bridge.
Extreme example; imagine a traffic cone resting in the 'open bridge'. As the cone is pushed forward, the 'tip' or front of the cone rises. If that drastic taper were flattened out, more like a rod, the tip would not rise so dramatically.
The 'closed bridge' encompasses the entire perimeter of the shaft so the tip will not rise as in the previous example no matter how steep the taper.
Just food for thought.

Thanks, makes sense.

 

[Siz]

It's desirable for the player with an open bridge to have a long stroke-zone on their shaft and conversely the European taper favors the closed bridge.
Extreme example; imagine a traffic cone resting in the 'open bridge'. As the cone is pushed forward, the 'tip' or front of the cone rises. If that drastic taper were flattened out, more like a rod, the tip would not rise so dramatically.
The 'closed bridge' encompasses the entire perimeter of the shaft so the tip will not rise as in the previous example no matter how steep the taper.
Just food for thought.

I can see your logic here, but it doesn't work quite that way for me.

I played snooker for 10 years or so and in common with virtually all other snooker players, used an open bridge and a European taper. It was only when I took up pool again and started using a closed bridge more that I found the pro taper to be a real advantage.

For me, the benefit of a pro taper when using a closed bridge is that it allows a free follow through. I find that a conical taper tends to 'stick' a little as the diameter expands. But perhaps others feel differently.