Thoughts on cuemaker's transition from 57 inch, 58 inch and over 60 inch cue.

C

Cezar Morales

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello guys,

I learned that in the past, the norm for the standard length pool cue is 57 inches and some cuemakers till today still swear by 'em, like Joey Gold of Cognoscenti cues.

And the transition to the modern length which is 58 inches.

Whats the rationale behind it as in did cuemakers just wake up one day and decided "hey i'm gonna make a longer pool cue n its gonna be 58 inches ", but why 58, not 59 or 60 ?

And i notice there's current trend of players who swore by their 60" n above cues with the likes of Efren ( 59" judd & 60" mezz ) and strickland ( 70 inches if i get it right seriously ), i tried the 59 n 60 inch bandwagon but just didnt like it, felt unbalanced and a softer hit despite having a longer stroke.

One day, just picked up a cheap cue belonging to my friend and just loved how it plays so i turn to my friend and said" man, your junk plays good " and he winked at me n replied " compare the length w ur cue". I did and realize it is an inch shorter and he explain , shorter cue, stiffer hit, good feedback and lesser deflection and i thought "bullshit ".

So guys, what are your thoughts on 57 inch cue, i just felt being able to better execute shots with lots of cue ball action with good feedback.

Why did most cuemakers turn to 58 and some like Cognoscenti sticking to 57,
any reasons, any 57 inch cue lovers out there who wld like to share ?

Thanks
 
The cue length itself shouldnt have much to do with how it feels. By that logic, a 52" cue should feel better than a 57" For your friends cue, he probably just has a nice hitting cue. Any talk about the hit of a certain length being better, or a certain length cue playing better etc etc etc are just superstition IMHO.

Length is more about having enough cue to stroke comfortably etc. The 'cues are getting longer' phenomenon still cracks me up. The main reason for the change from 57" to 58" was mainly people getting taller as time went on, and the stance changes from 14.1 to 9 ball. The old straight pool players tended to stand up higher on the shot, where 9 ball players etc get lower in their stance. Now people are stretching out as far as they can, chin touching the cue and most are still more than ok with a 58" cue.

Enter Earls javelin........ His main reason for it, he doesnt like using a bridge as it slows him down. He prefer to stretch, add into that his 10' table fetish, his experimentation with equipment and his own superstitions...... and that explains Earls cue. People laughed and laughed at old Earl, but when SVB added an extension (again, playing Earl on the 10'rs), he admittedly forgot to take it off, and for whatever reason just liked it, so he left it on. When SVB started shooting a long stick, THAT is when people started with the extension craze etc.

IMO its a fad and will pass as most stuff like that does. When youve been around anything for a long time, you notice patterns, and this has a huge "fad pattern" feel to it..... :thumbup:
 
Chuck Fields said:
The cue length itself shouldnt have much to do with how it feels. By that logic, a 52" cue should feel better than a 57" For your friends cue, he probably just has a nice hitting cue. Any talk about the hit of a certain length being better, or a certain length cue playing better etc etc etc are just superstition IMHO.

Length is more about having enough cue to stroke comfortably etc. The 'cues are getting longer' phenomenon still cracks me up. The main reason for the change from 57" to 58" was mainly people getting taller as time went on, and the stance changes from 14.1 to 9 ball. The old straight pool players tended to stand up higher on the shot, where 9 ball players etc get lower in their stance. Now people are stretching out as far as they can, chin touching the cue and most are still more than ok with a 58" cue.

Enter Earls javelin........ His main reason for it, he doesnt like using a bridge as it slows him down. He prefer to stretch, add into that his 10' table fetish, his experimentation with equipment and his own superstitions...... and that explains Earls cue. People laughed and laughed at old Earl, but when SVB added an extension (again, playing Earl on the 10'rs), he admittedly forgot to take it off, and for whatever reason just liked it, so he left it on. When SVB started shooting a long stick, THAT is when people started with the extension craze etc.

IMO its a fad and will pass as most stuff like that does. When youve been around anything for a long time, you notice patterns, and this has a huge "fad pattern" feel to it..... :thumbup:
Click to expand...

You should give it a shot.
I'd been wanting a ~65" cue for a long time and figured everyone including Cuemakers would think I'm crazy, so when Earl did this it was my opportunity to get what I wanted - will never go back!!! I have a 6" and 10" extension and 95% of the time use the 10"
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
You should give it a shot.
I'd been wanting a ~65" cue for a long time and figured everyone including Cuemakers would think I'm crazy, so when Earl did this it was my opportunity to get what I wanted - will never go back!!! I have a 6" and 10" extension and 95% of the time use the 10"
Jason
Click to expand...

I get the long cue if needed concept. Ive played 59" cues for many years, and just ordered a 60" sneaky pete. Im 6'3 to 6'4 and always grip the butt cap on most shots, so I broke down and went up a little mainly because it was a cheap upgrade. So need I understand; What I dont understand is under 6' tall players with 64-65" cues....... There is a foot or more cue behind some of the players hands Ive seen with the extensions. I would think that would screw up a feeling of balance along with a deadened feel due to the added hardware. To each their own of course, I just dont understand, and the reasons Ive gotten when Ive asked dont compute either...... LOL
 
jasonlaus said:
You should give it a shot.
I'd been wanting a ~65" cue for a long time and figured everyone including Cuemakers would think I'm crazy, so when Earl did this it was my opportunity to get what I wanted - will never go back!!! I have a 6" and 10" extension and 95% of the time use the 10"
Jason
Click to expand...

Go for it buddy in longer cues but i'll head the opposite, i'll be gg for shorter 57 inch cues.

I feel that the length of cues does not really have anything to do with height.
Why do i say so ?

Efren seems 5'7 and he used to play with 61" and now a 60' mezz cue.
Strickland playing with an 70 inch cue ?!! C'mon.

I'm 6" and have no problems with a 58", tried 60 inch once and felt it was too soft n didnt like additional length , thought it did gave me alota cue ball action but generally my shot and running out percentage went down alot.
is it because of the cue ? No, it's on my playing ability but i just couldn't get used to it.

Went back to 58 and played much better.
Tried a 57' , kinda like it alot,felt more comfortable.
Gabe Owen is 6'4, Ronnie Alcano 6'3 and both have no problems playing 58' altho Ronnie had a longer cue but he only use it for shots that he didnt wanna use a bridge.

Therefore, play w whatever u comfortable with, if u think u can win a world title with a 80 inch cue, go for it.

However, still like to hear from any 57'inch die-hard lovers, any Cognoscenti fans out there ?

Do ur feel that 57 balance better, deflect less and hit stiffer ?

Cheers :)
 
I'm pretty sure it was a female who originally suggested the additional length was necessary... :D

There's some great info so far in this thread. My original thought was the progression from a lot of straight pool to 9-ball which had already been mentioned. It makes the most sense due to the longer stroke "necessary" in 9-ball.

I saw a video recently showing the difference between a slip stroke and a jab stroke. With a jab stroke a shorter cue would suffice...
 
Cezar Morales said:
Hello guys,

I learned that in the past, the norm for the standard length pool cue is 57 inches and some cuemakers till today still swear by 'em, like Joey Gold of Cognoscenti cues.

And the transition to the modern length which is 58 inches.

Whats the rationale behind it as in did cuemakers just wake up one day and decided "hey i'm gonna make a longer pool cue n its gonna be 58 inches ", but why 58, not 59 or 60 ?

And i notice there's current trend of players who swore by their 60" n above cues with the likes of Efren ( 59" judd & 60" mezz ) and strickland ( 70 inches if i get it right seriously ), i tried the 59 n 60 inch bandwagon but just didnt like it, felt unbalanced and a softer hit despite having a longer stroke.

One day, just picked up a cheap cue belonging to my friend and just loved how it plays so i turn to my friend and said" man, your junk plays good " and he winked at me n replied " compare the length w ur cue". I did and realize it is an inch shorter and he explain , shorter cue, stiffer hit, good feedback and lesser deflection and i thought "bullshit ".

So guys, what are your thoughts on 57 inch cue, i just felt being able to better execute shots with lots of cue ball action with good feedback.

Why did most cuemakers turn to 58 and some like Cognoscenti sticking to 57,
any reasons, any 57 inch cue lovers out there who wld like to share ?

Thanks
Click to expand...


In just the last few months I have sold at least 10 Cues that were 60" long. Out of those ten, 9 have called back and ordered at least 3 more Cues. I did have my first return since November, the buyer said the Cue was great but he didn't like the hit, he gave me a great review and got a full refund with a smile.

The longest I have made were 62", some people like to break with them.

I am 5'10" and I like playing a 60" Cue but tell a guy who stands 6'5" to try a 57" Cue, I hope he hits you with it, just kidding. I have had guys that tall love the 62".

I have buyers who are 5'5" and they want a much shorter cue, makes sense to me.

I have another customer who wants 12 more cues, some for the kids will be around 54". I sent him a cue last week, he could not figure out WHY I thought he should try a 60" Cue and I said if he didn't like it, I would give a full refund. The day he got it was when he told me he wants 12 more cues.

SIMPLE MORAL OF THE STORY? If I told all these people that cues are only 57"-58" they would have just smiled and told me to have a good day, my head would still in the sand wondering, why didn't they buy?
 
Gus Szamboti made quite a few 59-59.5" cues. Mine was 59.5", weighed 20 oz. and was exceptional to play with.
 
Most US sporting equipment was made for a 5 ft 9/10 inch male. I don't know if this standard has changed.

I was told by the BCA instructor that I took lessons from years ago that to properly fit the length of a cue you should stand up straight with your feet together and the cue should reach your chin. I notice SVB and a number of the players from the philippines cues reach their eyes.

The first thing she did on our first lesson was say my cue was to short (58 inches) for me. I had a 59.5 inch cue made and immediately shot better with it and haven't looked back. The only problem with buying a longer cue was most production cases wouldn't fit a longer cue.

A lot of time has past since that first lesson. What is the modern method for fitting cues? Other than reach do longer or shorter cues have an advantage on different size tables?
 
accustatsfan said:
Most US sporting equipment was made for a 5 ft 9/10 inch male. I don't know if this standard has changed.

I was told by the BCA instructor that I took lessons from years ago that to properly fit the length of a cue you should stand up straight with your feet together and the cue should reach your chin. I notice SVB and a number of the players from the philippines cues reach their eyes.

The first thing she did on our first lesson was say my cue was to short (58 inches) for me. I had a 59.5 inch cue made and immediately shot better with it and haven't looked back. The only problem with buying a longer cue was most production cases wouldn't fit a longer cue.

A lot of time has past since that first lesson. What is the modern method for fitting cues? Other than reach do longer or shorter cues have an advantage on different size tables?
Click to expand...

I'm 6'3" and use a standard cue. I have long arms. I use a standard 58" cue and on standard shots I am not gripping anywhere near the buttcap. I am probably 8-10" up the butt of the cue. I bend my bridge arm much more than most people. This allows my head to be closer to the shot. I think too many tall people stand further away from the shot than they need to. I find my height to be an advantage because it can put me significantly closer to what I want to see.
 
ElCorazonFrio said:
I'm 6'3" and use a standard cue. I have long arms. I use a standard 58" cue and on standard shots I am not gripping anywhere near the buttcap. I am probably 8-10" up the butt of the cue. I bend my bridge arm much more than most people. This allows my head to be closer to the shot. I think too many tall people stand further away from the shot than they need to. I find my height to be an advantage because it can put me significantly closer to what I want to see.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice. I still use a straight bridge arm I've tried the bent arm, but haven't been able to make the technique transition. That is a interesting thought you have about being closer I'll try bending it again.

Cue fitting is interesting to me because sports like golf have an in depth fitting process if you use a qualified club fitter (I'm not talking about a general golf chain store). I know there are some smart cuemakers out there who do wonderful things with fitting. My experiences with two cuemakers has been nothing but positive I don't see using a production cue again.
 
Cezar Morales said:
Hello guys,

I learned that in the past, the norm for the standard length pool cue is 57 inches and some cuemakers till today still swear by 'em, like Joey Gold of Cognoscenti cues.

And the transition to the modern length which is 58 inches.

Whats the rationale behind it as in did cuemakers just wake up one day and decided "hey i'm gonna make a longer pool cue n its gonna be 58 inches ", but why 58, not 59 or 60 ?

And i notice there's current trend of players who swore by their 60" n above cues with the likes of Efren ( 59" judd & 60" mezz ) and strickland ( 70 inches if i get it right seriously ), i tried the 59 n 60 inch bandwagon but just didnt like it, felt unbalanced and a softer hit despite having a longer stroke.

One day, just picked up a cheap cue belonging to my friend and just loved how it plays so i turn to my friend and said" man, your junk plays good " and he winked at me n replied " compare the length w ur cue". I did and realize it is an inch shorter and he explain , shorter cue, stiffer hit, good feedback and lesser deflection and i thought "bullshit ".

So guys, what are your thoughts on 57 inch cue, i just felt being able to better execute shots with lots of cue ball action with good feedback.

Why did most cuemakers turn to 58 and some like Cognoscenti sticking to 57,
any reasons, any 57 inch cue lovers out there who wld like to share ?

Thanks
Click to expand...

It may have to do with for some reason all house cues were 57" going way back. There are several dynamics that have changed over the years and the length is the least of it. Years ago when many played with a 57" cue they were commonly balanced at 17" from the butt.

That is also 40" from the tip. The balance from the tip is actually the number that counts. So if you have a 58" cue that is balanced 40" from the tip when you pick it up it should feel the same. Unless you reach back there you have no way of knowing there is an extra inch.

Something big has changed recently though. Players are playing with lighter cues that are balanced much farther forward as well as thinner shafts. My personal cue now is 571/2" 19oz, 13mm shaft and balanced 38" from the tip as well as a thinner butt. I have never played with anything like this before.

What I have discovered is, a more forward balanced cue seems to play and feel, at least to me, like a heavier cue. I am not just talking about feel but the way the balls respond. I used to play by the way with a 20oz +, 13.25 mm for decades.

I have the luxury of experimenting with cues because I can build my own cue. I would hate to be ordering a new cue today and waiting a year there are so many things that can effect the way the cue feels.

Because you can't really experiment on your own unless you are a cue builder, you may never really find what is the optimum cue for you. It can be a crap shoot. I doubt I just added anything to the conversation other then more confusion for the poor guy trying to order a cue.
 
accustatsfan said:
Thank you for the advice. I still use a straight bridge arm I've tried the bent arm, but haven't been able to make the technique transition. That is a interesting thought you have about being closer I'll try bending it again.

Cue fitting is interesting to me because sports like golf have an in depth fitting process if you use a qualified club fitter (I'm not talking about a general golf chain store). I know there are some smart cuemakers out there who do wonderful things with fitting. My experiences with two cuemakers has been nothing but positive I don't see using a production cue again.
Click to expand...

The bent arm will affect much more than your arm. I started using the bent arm when I fully rebuilt my stance--after 10yrs of a higher stance, I changed everything about my stance from my rear heel to the index finger on my bridge hand.

Not for the faint of heart, but if you are changing something major, it will affect everything.
 
I just had a 60in built and I love it. My arms are kinda long, but it just feels better to me, more comfortable. I also have a 6in quick connect extension which comes in handy occasionally on the 9 ft.
 
Against the norm, Jimmy Reid played with a 56" and Pat Flemming of Accu-stats played with a 54". Many billiard players play with cues like 52 and 54" cues. Stranglely billiard players also play with very light cue like 13 to 15 ounce. Cue dymamics can be interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top