Tall players, short sticks?

[Angle Detective]

For feel, I like the forwardmost point of my rear hand to be anywhere from about 6" to 9" behind my Meucci's balance point, but I'm a tall guy and strokewise I like my rear forearm to be vertical, so I suffer with the balance point being 13" away to achieve this position.

So here's my thinking about this. Just a theory, but I need help with it:

I've been excited about getting a new longer cue trying to solve my problem, but I realized today that a longer cue is probably not the answer. A longer cue doesn't seem to accomplish the shift in balance point. It is the distance from the TIP of the cue (or more accurately, the bridge hand) that I should be considering for balance point. My theory is that tall players should probably stick to normal length cues and just have them designed to be weighted heavily towards the rear. They should simply get used to gripping nearer the butt cap than shorter players.

If I'm right about this, then what is the best way to accomplish it? On a 58" cue, I'm looking for a balance point that's about 13" from the butt cap. I assume that I would need lightweight wood and a lightweight joint, plus either a heavy weighted wood or heavy bolt at the very rear.

If I'm right about the wood, what are the really light weight woods that give a good hit?

How would you accomplish this sort of balance?

As for overall weight, I want the cue somewhere in the 19-20oz range if this is possible.

Any thoughts?
Thanks

 

[dave sutton]

i dont know if i read this correct but i think your off. i have ha friend that is tall and i made him a extended cue. it put his wingspan in perfect allignment. fundementals are more inportant that weight or ballance point of a cue. thats the advantage of taller players playing with longer sticks.

his game jumped up 2 speeds bc it put him all in line

ballance point will change with materials used. you understand that already. also a ss joint will change the overall weight bc its 1.5 oz of extra metal up front

another big thing about a longer cue is it lets your stoke out a bit bc your stroke is naturally longer than mine. not like your shooting in a bottle. gives your more range

 

[Angle Detective]

Thanks Dave. I agree with all the points you made. That's why I was considering a long cue. But the problem I'm having is with being too far away from the balance point. It feels great to me to be close to it, but unless a cue can be made where the balance point is way way back I can never get close enough and still spread out like you're saying. I could get a long cue, but the balance point will likely still be 13" or so forward of my rear hand.

So to spread my wings and also get that balance back far enough, I'm suggesting an average length cue, but one with very light components and heavily weighted at the end of the butt. And just accept that I have to grip the cue near the end.

But since I'm not a cuemaker I may be wrong about whether it's possible to get a good hitting cue that has a balance back at about 13" from the end.

 

[dave sutton]

don't be fixated on a number. A longer cue will have a different ballance point. I also agree that a longer cue should be a but heavier to compensate for the extra legnth. Maybe even close to 21oz. Everything is bumped up a notch

 

[birdy]

don't be fixated on a number. A longer cue will have a different ballance point. I also agree that a longer cue should be a but heavier to compensate for the extra legnth. Maybe even close to 21oz. Everything is bumped up a notch

Where is the benefit of a longer cue it the balance point moves forward ?
For example if I get a 60'' cue with the balance point 2'' forward compared with the same cue but 58'' my grip hand would be in the same place so I can't shoot right .

 

[dave sutton]

Where is the benefit of a longer cue it the balance point moves forward ?
For example if I get a 60'' cue with the balance point 2'' forward compared with the same cue but 58'' my grip hand would be in the same place so I can't shoot right .

what? You're talking in Circles.

 

[birdy]

I have 3 longer cues , and all of them are forward balanced . No use for me at all !
I shoot better with a 57'' butt-heavy house cue with my grip at the end of the butt . With a 60'' forward balanced cue I have to grip it from the wrap , 3''-5'' from the butt-end . So 60'' cue becomes 55''-57'' cue !
I need a 60'' cue to hold it from the butt end like a house cue . If it has forward balance I think I need a 64 '' cue to hold it from the middle of the wrap . I don't want that kind of giant cue .

 

[dave sutton]

I have 3 longer cues , and all of them are forward balanced . No use for me at all !
I shoot better with a 57'' butt-heavy house cue with my grip at the end of the butt . With a 60'' forward balanced cue I have to grip it from the wrap , 3''-5'' from the butt-end . So 60'' cue becomes 55''-57'' cue !
I need a 60'' cue to hold it from the butt end like a house cue . If it has forward balance I think I need a 64 '' cue to hold it from the middle of the wrap . I don't want that kind of giant cue .

well how tall are you. if your not atleast 6 ft then it is a mood point. when a player is 6ft i recomment 59'' cue at 6'3'' or 6'4'' i recommend 60'' cue.

some arms are longer. i dont care about weight or balance point. i care about fundamentals. at 6'3'' or taller your pendulum (back arm) isnt at the perfect 90 degrees like it should be and your gridge isnt 6 to 8 inches long as it should be. i know a man that is 6'7'' and plays with a 58'' cue. he looks like a moron and wonders why he cant make a ball. i just shake my head.

like a golf swing or baseball swing fundamentals are the most imporant thing in this game. who cares about a 400yrd drive when you slice the ball like hell.

 

[Angle Detective]

There's a home video of Willie Mosconi I saw last night where he gives a quick instruction he'd probably given 1000 times over his lifetime on how to hold the cue, etc. He actually says to hold the cue 3"-6" behind the balance point. Here it is if any of you are interested:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2650605728842782548

I'm wondering if it's possible to do what I'd like in a cue. One thing that is certainly possible is to change the way I bridge and look over the cue. If I bend the bridging arm at about 45 degrees rather than stretching it out like I'm used to, I can bring everything forward to where the balance point is near the vertical stroking forearm. It puts my eyes about 6" or so closer to the cueball, but it may be worth getting used to if I can't find a cue with a backward enough balance. Or maybe a combination of the two--a forward arm bend and a more backwards balanced cue would work better.

 

[DBK]

On a 58" cue, I'm looking for a balance point that's about 13" from the butt cap. I assume that I would need lightweight wood and a lightweight joint, plus either a heavy weighted wood or heavy bolt at the very rear......
As for overall weight, I want the cue somewhere in the 19-20oz range if this is possible.

By the experience I think that such balance is impossible. For a long time I make cues for Russian billiards. The basic distinctions can be looked here, on the bottom of thread. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=94688

They are longer, is more thin and is much heavier than a pool cues. But nevertheless the balance point on Russian cues stands approximately in 40-44 sm from bamper (15.7-17.7"). My opinion - even if to make pool cues on proportions of a Russian cue with length of 155 sm (61 ") and weight of 570 gramme (20 ounces) the point of balance will approximately stand on 45 sm (17.7") from bamper. Thus you receive feeling as on cue of standard 58 " but with balance point approximately 14.5"-14.7" from the cup. It seems to me close to utmost result.

Add. It concerns to usual 2-pieces cues with a metal pin. 1-piece кий or G-10 pin will remove balance back still approximately on 0.3-0.5".

 

[birdy]

well how tall are you. if your not atleast 6 ft then it is a mood point. when a player is 6ft i recomment 59'' cue at 6'3'' or 6'4'' i recommend 60'' cue.

some arms are longer. i dont care about weight or balance point. i care about fundamentals. at 6'3'' or taller your pendulum (back arm) isnt at the perfect 90 degrees like it should be and your gridge isnt 6 to 8 inches long as it should be. i know a man that is 6'7'' and plays with a 58'' cue. he looks like a moron and wonders why he cant make a ball. i just shake my head.

like a golf swing or baseball swing fundamentals are the most imporant thing in this game. who cares about a 400yrd drive when you slice the ball like hell.

I'm 6ft 7' .

 

[Angle Detective]

By the experience I think that such balance is impossible. For a long time I make cues for Russian billiards. The basic distinctions can be looked here, on the bottom of thread. http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=94688

They are longer, is more thin and is much heavier than a pool cues. But nevertheless the balance point on Russian cues stands approximately in 40-44 sm from bamper (15.7-17.7"). My opinion - even if to make pool cues on proportions of a Russian cue with length of 155 sm (61 ") and weight of 570 gramme (20 ounces) the point of balance will approximately stand on 45 sm (17.7") from bamper. Thus you receive feeling as on cue of standard 58 " but with balance point approximately 14.5"-14.7" from the cup. It seems to me close to utmost result.

Add. It concerns to usual 2-pieces cues with a metal pin. 1-piece кий or G-10 pin will remove balance back still approximately on 0.3-0.5".

Thanks Dmitry. I didn't think it was really possible to have a 13" balance point, so I'm not surprised. But I hope it can be moved back to 15" or so. Even that 3" backwards would help me. And I love thinner handles.

 

[Angle Detective]

Sorry.

I think my theory was off. Apologies Dave. I recall the fellow from Schmelke telling me that he had just finished a 62" cocobola sneaky pete (I assume with maple forearm) for someone and the balance point on that cue was 19".

I now realize that the 13" effective balance point I'm trying to achieve is more likely to be done with a longer cue. If you look at it from the tip end, a 13" balance point on a 58" cue is 45" from the tip(58 minus 13). A typical balance point of 18" would give a tip to balance point measurement of 40".

If that Schmelke 62" cue had a balance of 19" from the butt end, that puts it from the tip end at 43" (62 minus 19), which is much closer to my ideal of 45".

Suppose a 64" cue could somehow have a balance point of 19". That would put the tip to balance point at exactly where I want it--45". I don't know how heavy I'd have to go though.

 

[DBK]

But I hope it can be moved back to 15" or so. Even that 3" backwards would help me. And I love thinner handles.

Then probably you can order the cue with the thin handle down to 28 mm (1.1"). The main task the minimal weight of the cue without weight bolts. To make the cue more thin, to apply wood the most lightweight from good playing-wood for cue. To apply not heaviest pin, for example G-10 or wooden. To concentrate additional weight maximum close to the butt cup, it is possible not standard weight bolts 3/8 " but thicker, up to 0,7-0,8 " in diameter. I think skilled cuemaker can cope with such task, not having lost playing properties of the cue.

 

[Angle Detective]

Thanks Dmitry. That's exactly what I discussed with the company Schmelke today. They asked for a little more time than usual to get everything adjusted perfectly. They understood my concerns and they're willing to do what it takes to get the balance point back. And for very little money. I'll post when I get the cue to let you know what they did and how it feels.

 

[DBK]

Thanks Dmitry. That's exactly what I discussed with the company Schmelke today. They asked for a little more time than usual to get everything adjusted perfectly. They understood my concerns and they're willing to do what it takes to get the balance point back. And for very little money.

Always welcome.
If any consultations are necessary it is possible for you or yours cuemaker to address me through a е-mail or PM. I am ready to share experience. It for "Not to Invent a bicycle ". Especially concerning to geometry of the long cue, there are some nuances.

I'll post when I get the cue to let you know what they did and how it feels.

It would be very interesting. Some Russian cuemakers make long thin pool cues sometimes. Some players like that the some not like. It would be interesting to hear about your experience.
Thanks.

Good luck.
Dmitry.

 

[Jule]

Hmm, how about a steel buttcap? I think that'd help too.