Update on forward balanced cue questions...

I posted this already in another thread but perhaps it will be helpful to somewhere here.

I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches from the butt end.

1651028053429.png


1651028061210.png



  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
 
kling&allen said:
I posted this already in another thread but perhaps it will be helpful to somewhere here.

I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches from the butt end.

View attachment 639362

View attachment 639363


  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
Click to expand...
How tall are you? What is your wing span?
 
kling&allen said:
I posted this already in another thread but perhaps it will be helpful to somewhere here.

I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches from the butt end.

View attachment 639362

View attachment 639363


  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
Click to expand...


Personal opinion but, balance is the most important thing - period. For over 3 decades I have picked up lighter house cues (I've always looked for 17oz cues off the rack but played with a 20oz cue) because they tend to be butt heavy and at the end of the day it's all about the weight in my fingers during the stroke. For the record, for 2 decades I had no idea about balance point, I just knew lighter bar cues felt better. The weight of the cue will force adjustments in stroke speed because it affects the transfer of power but, if a cue is back or front heavy the weight doesn't matter, it simply doesn't feel right and throws me off (personally).

I have cues that range from 20oz to 17.7'sh, most of them are balanced perfect so I can switch between them pretty efficiently (barring stroke-slip) but I have a new cue (same builder - Huebler) that is very close in weight to a cue I have been playing with for 3 decades but it's very front heavy and I rarely play with it because it feels like a tank.
 
jrctherake said:
How tall are you? What is your wing span?
Click to expand...

6'1 with a 44L jacket size. I agree this matters as well given i grip the cue near the butt (and typically off the grip) even with a 60in cue. So even with my donut all the balance points are far in front of my hand.
 
Chili Palmer said:
Personal opinion but, balance is the most important thing - period. For over 3 decades I have picked up lighter house cues (I've always looked for 17oz cues off the rack but played with a 20oz cue) because they tend to be butt heavy and at the end of the day it's all about the weight in my fingers during the stroke. For the record, for 2 decades I had no idea about balance point, I just knew lighter bar cues felt better. The weight of the cue will force adjustments in stroke speed because it affects the transfer of power but, if a cue is back or front heavy the weight doesn't matter, it simply doesn't feel right and throws me off (personally).

I have cues that range from 20oz to 17.7'sh, most of them are balanced perfect so I can switch between them pretty efficiently (barring stroke-slip) but I have a new cue (same builder - Huebler) that is very close in weight to a cue I have been playing with for 3 decades but it's very front heavy and I rarely play with it because it feels like a tank.
Click to expand...

I think this a good reason for people to try playing with different cues. I don't think the standard 58im cue (with balance point at or near the a joint) is necessarily still the best fit given the changes in stroke and stance since 1905.
 
Chili Palmer said:
Personal opinion but, balance is the most important thing - period. For over 3 decades I have picked up lighter house cues (I've always looked for 17oz cues off the rack but played with a 20oz cue) because they tend to be butt heavy and at the end of the day it's all about the weight in my fingers during the stroke. For the record, for 2 decades I had no idea about balance point, I just knew lighter bar cues felt better. The weight of the cue will force adjustments in stroke speed because it affects the transfer of power but, if a cue is back or front heavy the weight doesn't matter, it simply doesn't feel right and throws me off (personally).

I have cues that range from 20oz to 17.7'sh, most of them are balanced perfect so I can switch between them pretty efficiently (barring stroke-slip) but I have a new cue (same builder - Huebler) that is very close in weight to a cue I have been playing with for 3 decades but it's very front heavy and I rarely play with it because it feels like a tank.
Click to expand...

Some historical background. Rambow on the topic of balance point:

1651058708147.png


Willie:

1651058750943.png


And Hoppe's upright stance and grip at the A-joint:

1651058783553.png
 
Last edited:
kling&allen said:
6'1 with a 44L jacket size. I agree this matters as well given i grip the cue near the butt (and typically off the grip) even with a 60in cue. So even with my donut all the balance points are far in front of my hand.
Click to expand...
Your height and wing pucks your balance point that works best.

Having said that, if a person plays years and years with cues that are improperly balanced for them....... well, they will adjust to that improper bal point. Then if they try a cue that has a better bal point for their height... it will take another adjustment.

Most will not spend the time and energy making that adjustment. Especially older and injured players that only have so much energy and time at the table.

In the end, the taller you are, the less the balance point will make... .within reason.
 
kling&allen said:
I think this a good reason for people to try playing with different cues. I don't think the standard 58im cue (with balance point at or near the a joint) is necessarily still the best fit given the changes in stroke and stance since 1905.
Click to expand...
I'm in agreement with your statement. 100%.

Thing is, most custom cues are NOT truly custom.

My meaning:

I ask a HOF maker to make me a cue a while back. He agreed.

Well, when I ask him to make it at a particular spec.... he said no.

Most cue makers are the same way.

That's one reason I don't get on the custom cue maker bandwagon most of the time.

I've found this to be true when it comes to a "Playing cue":

Option "A".... buy a cheap production cue ($300ish range) and then have the pin removed and adjust the bal at that end.

Then remove wood or add weight from the butt end to make it more neutral or butt heavy if that is desired.

Attach your preferred shaft and rack em.

Option "B"..... order a custom cue and argue with the maker on what you want.

Wait months to years on end and then when you get it...... you MAKE yourself live with the cue. Lol... after all... its a custom.

I'm not downing all custom makers.... just 90% of them.

There are a "few" out there that will actually do exactly what you ask instead of saying "I build my cues "x" way and won't change".
 
kling&allen said:
I think this a good reason for people to try playing with different cues. I don't think the standard 58im cue (with balance point at or near the a joint) is necessarily still the best fit given the changes in stroke and stance since 1905.
Click to expand...

100%. I was out of pool for 14 years and when I got back into it I figured it had been so long maybe my preferences had changed, they did. I bought some cues trying to find out what I liked. Only by trying a ton of cues did I figure out my preferred weight and balance - oddly enough, I didn't even know at the time that's what I was gauging, I just bought cues and found what I liked and only later did I learn about the intricacies of balance points.
 
so glad i dont worry about what weight it is, long as its not 20 or heavier
or the balance of it

i conform to whatever cue i want to play with in a short time
 
Chili Palmer said:
He must not have been that tall?
Click to expand...
Average player back then was between 5' 4" and 5' 6" with a ~6' tall player here and there.

Today the average (American) player is between 5' 8" and 6'.

The difference in height alone is good reason for custom and production cue makers to be more open to providing a way to move the bal point up or back.

McDermott has a butt that allows the player to move the bal point to almost any length they want. I think it's their H series cue.. not sure though.
 
jrctherake said:
Average player back then was between 5' 4" and 5' 6" with a ~6' tall player here and there.

Today the average (American) player is between 5' 8" and 6'.

The difference in height alone is good reason for custom and production cue makers to be more open to providing a way to move the bal point up or back.

McDermott has a butt that allows the player to move the bal point to almost any length they want. I think it's their H series cue.. not sure though.
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine is 6' 2" and we've had that discussion on multiple occasions. The problem is, people don't know what they don't know ;)
 
Texas Carom Club said:
so glad i dont worry about what weight it is, long as its not 20 or heavier
or the balance of it

i conform to whatever cue i want to play with in a short time
Click to expand...

Preference. I can play with anything as long as it has a tip. If I want to play well (in a short period of time) I need a good balance point.

If I'm spending money - I'm buying exactly what I prefer.
 
Chili Palmer said:
Preference. I can play with anything as long as it has a tip. If I want to play well (in a short period of time) I need a good balance point.

If I'm spending money - I'm buying exactly what I prefer.
Click to expand...
i just remember a time when i would be giving just so many specs to a cue maker, really never made a difference in my game

the last one i got, i just said i want it to look like that other one you made lmao.
he didnt ask me anything specific till it was being completed, what tip and weight do you want , i said med hard and 19ish

when it came in from the phillipines it was unspeakably heavy and dreadful, after a few days though it mysteriously seemed to get lighter and it plays as good as it looks now,
i dont have a clue on the weight and the tip size although i could guess its around 12.75-12.5
 
Right on! I have the same experience with my new cue as well. I've sent my other carbon fiber shaft to have weight added. Hope to get it back in the next couple of weeks.
 
kling&allen said:
I posted this already in another thread but perhaps it will be helpful to somewhere here.

I made an experimental cue once to test some of these theories. In short, I don't think balance point matters much.

I built a quick test butt out of some scrap poplar trim. The butt is 30 inches long, has a 3D printed collar and bumper, and weighs in at 8.3 oz (8.8 oz once I installed an aluminum radial pin). I paired it with a 30-inch CF shaft that weighs 3.3 oz. Surprisingly, this ~12.1oz cue, with a balance point 21 inches from the butt, plays just fine provided I don’t have to move the cue ball too much.

To dramatically change the balance point, I made a donut with removable weights (5.5oz to 7.5oz) that can secure to any point on the butt using collets. This allowed me to test a range of balance points from ~13inches to ~25 inches from the butt end.

View attachment 639362

View attachment 639363


  • The forward balance points were the most unnatural. I’d rather play with the unweighted 12.1 cue than a 18oz cue with the balance point at 25 inches. Occasionally I still play with the 12.1 oz cue as I like the way it feels.
  • I preferred the rearward balance point more than forward balance points, although I didn’t notice that much (or any) difference between 13 inch and 15 inch balance points. The main difference is the cue feels lighter when I’m walking around holding the cue with only my grip hand. Once I’m down on the table small changes in balance point didn’t impact my stroke, which makes sense given the small differences in force the cue places on my bridge hand and grip fingers based on balance point.
Click to expand...
I like the way you think Sir!
I also built a “tester” although I didn’t have as graceful a design as yours.
Took an old (cheap-chit) mizerak that I liked the slim handle of, and cut at a joint,added a weight, reglued..
Made a nice bit of difference, and then added a joint to make it break in the forearm for a jump-cue, also adding weight back towards the butt below that pin...
Back and forth, & found that it is a MAJOR improvement to me when there is a bit of “front balance”.
Of course I am a short guy 5’7” so the idea of it being different for taller heights had never occurred to me.

Love this site!😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top