About 15 years ago, Grady Mathews came to NYC to visit a mutual friend. He had a cue George Schuler had given him to try. Grady really wasn't that interested in the cue because he had a Schon he'd had for years and was playing great with it.
In any case, Grady said I might want to try the Schuler. So I did. I tried it with a shaft that looked to be about half way between a billiard shaft and a typical pool shaft. It was fairly uniform for 3-6" from the tip (I think 12.5mm), then tapered significantly from there.
In playing with it, I quickly noticed how little compensation I need for deflection (squirt). I was amazed that it required so much less than my South West, Kersenbrock, or any other cue I'd used. I suppose it didn't offer the degree of cueball action a springier shaft might, but the benefits certainly outweighed the relatively minor difference in ultimate action. Moreover, it was marvelously easy to control the cueball, especially for precise games like straight pool.
I asked Grady to sell it to me, but he didn't feel comfortable selling it at the time because he hadn't given it much of a chance and felt some obligation to G. Schuler. Next time I saw Grady, it was gone, and I never gave it much further thought.
But now I'm wondering, with all the talk of minimizing deflection with laminated cue shafts, if any of you cuemakers have experimented with the type of shaft taper I described? The results I had with that cue that night were remarkable, and I'm wondering, as I consider a laminated shaft, if I might be better off with a semi-billiard taper? What is the opinion of you cuemakers?
In any case, Grady said I might want to try the Schuler. So I did. I tried it with a shaft that looked to be about half way between a billiard shaft and a typical pool shaft. It was fairly uniform for 3-6" from the tip (I think 12.5mm), then tapered significantly from there.
In playing with it, I quickly noticed how little compensation I need for deflection (squirt). I was amazed that it required so much less than my South West, Kersenbrock, or any other cue I'd used. I suppose it didn't offer the degree of cueball action a springier shaft might, but the benefits certainly outweighed the relatively minor difference in ultimate action. Moreover, it was marvelously easy to control the cueball, especially for precise games like straight pool.
I asked Grady to sell it to me, but he didn't feel comfortable selling it at the time because he hadn't given it much of a chance and felt some obligation to G. Schuler. Next time I saw Grady, it was gone, and I never gave it much further thought.
But now I'm wondering, with all the talk of minimizing deflection with laminated cue shafts, if any of you cuemakers have experimented with the type of shaft taper I described? The results I had with that cue that night were remarkable, and I'm wondering, as I consider a laminated shaft, if I might be better off with a semi-billiard taper? What is the opinion of you cuemakers?
