Using a bar cue for draw...

[chefjeff]

nothing plays better than a good house cue.

I used to love finding a 19 oz Valley Supreme at a bar. Those are really nice cues for play. But now having used an ld for years, I tend to miss side spin shots with any bar cue.

Btw, that cue that got the draw tended to squirt like a Mother. It was that feeling of excess squirt coming straight off the tip that I got when I hit those fantastical draw shots. A feeling of weird action from the tip, not normal, that is.

Perhaps that "squirt" (straight off the tip, not sideways) is what put the excess spin on the cb?

Thanks for the reply,



Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Picture a perfectly flat tip hitting whitey quite a bit off center...
...only the edge would strike whitey, producing a glancing blow....weak hit.
....squirts more also

Yeah, and Canada is a real country.


Thanks, pt,



Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Find the best player in your area. Play a couple races to 7, 9 ball for $50. Make him use a bar cue. Then watch and learn.

Been there, done that, but thank you for the advice.

A little refresher never hurts, I suppose.



Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

One piece cue!

Seriously?

Could be.



Jeff Livingston

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I think you should buy the cue from the room owner then get a case maker to make a custom case to fit it.

MY personal ferrule is very soft, a ld shaft and all.

The ferrule on that bar cue was heavy, if anything. It was long, not short, not soft. It was not blue from play and the tip was dressed by someone recently into a nice dime shape. That's why I picked that cue from the rack.

A caveman could have gotten draw with it.



Jeff Livingston

 

[MattPoland]

You are very misinformed on this topic apparently

That’s pretty easy to assert. Would you like to share some of the thoughts around how or why a stick would give you a more effective draw shot? If I’m misinformed, I wouldn’t mind the opportunity to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[chefjeff]

I think you should buy the cue from the room owner then get a case maker to make a custom case to fit it.

It is in Denver and I'm in Des Moines.

Good idea, though, even if I just bought it to test out why it gives so much back.

Dr. Dave doesn't live far from the bar I was at, maybe he can drive down, get it, do some tests on it and then reverse engineer it and make a fortune selling copies of it. :thumbup: I'm asking only 20% of all sales.


Jeff Livingston

 

[qbilder]

You don't take a Ferrari to the bog just like you don't take a Jeep to the races. There's a lot going on in that statement but in a nut shell, I think the right cue was used in the right playing conditions. Old house cues have the spine & mass to move the CB on a typical bar table. The newer LD shafts just don't have it. They shine on Simonis cloth with polished balls because it's a matter of speed control and finesse. On more frictional equipment, you need some brute strength. And that's exactly what you get from an old house cue. They get fat fast & get much thicker along the shaft section than pretty much any newer age cue.

Most custom and production cues nowadays measure between .830"-.850" at the joint. A typical Dufferin or Valley supreme house house cue if measure at 29" from tip will often be around .880"+. It may not seem like a lot but it is a HUGE difference. All that extra material makes for a much stronger cue with significantly less flex, translating into more efficient power transfer. Flex in a cue is power absorption. In a given stroke, the ball gets some of the energy and everything opposite the ball gets some of the energy. The more flex in the cue, the less energy the CB gets. In the OP's situation, IMO the cue appropriately fit the playing conditions.

 

[jay helfert]

You don't take a Ferrari to the bog just like you don't take a Jeep to the races. There's a lot going on in that statement but in a nut shell, I think the right cue was used in the right playing conditions. Old house cues have the spine & mass to move the CB on a typical bar table. The newer LD shafts just don't have it. They shine on Simonis cloth with polished balls because it's a matter of speed control and finesse. On more frictional equipment, you need some brute strength. And that's exactly what you get from an old house cue. They get fat fast & get much thicker along the shaft section than pretty much any newer age cue.

Most custom and production cues nowadays measure between .830"-.850" at the joint. A typical Dufferin or Valley supreme house house cue if measure at 29" from tip will often be around .880"+. It may not seem like a lot but it is a HUGE difference. All that extra material makes for a much stronger cue with significantly less flex, translating into more efficient power transfer. Flex in a cue is power absorption. In a given stroke, the ball gets some of the energy and everything opposite the ball gets some of the energy. The more flex in the cue, the less energy the CB gets. In the OP's situation, IMO the cue appropriately fit the playing conditions.

In other words - one piece cue!

 

[marek]

That’s pretty easy to assert. Would you like to share some of the thoughts around how or why a stick would give you a more effective draw shot? If I’m misinformed, I wouldn’t mind the opportunity to learn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sure, no problem. Every cue has its own properties, one of the main properties being how much energy it can actually transfer to the cueball. I wont go into deep detail, simply put the more stiffer the hit the better energy transfer - the more a cue vibrates after the hit of the cueball the less energy went actually into the cueball itself. In theory if you had perfectly stiff cue which would have no vibration at all then you would have found the cue with perfect energy transfer. In real world you either have LD shafts which flex a lot or you have standard wooden shaft which have amazing energy transfer but you have to compensate for deflection a lot. And then you have all the shafts between which try to find "the golden middle way".
Now there is Revo (carbon shaft) which has the best of both worlds - its super stiff (vibrates very little) yet it still deflects a lot when hitting the cueball with sidespin. How Predator managed to do that is beyond my knowledge, but its a fact that with Revo you can draw the cueball much easier (longer distances) than with maple LD shafts, I would say that only the stiff non-LD wooden shafts can draw the cueball like Revo can. Thats probably what that house cue OP mentioned is - stiff non-LD cue
Hope that helps

 

[chefjeff]

You don't take a Ferrari to the bog just like you don't take a Jeep to the races. There's a lot going on in that statement but in a nut shell, I think the right cue was used in the right playing conditions. Old house cues have the spine & mass to move the CB on a typical bar table. The newer LD shafts just don't have it. They shine on Simonis cloth with polished balls because it's a matter of speed control and finesse. On more frictional equipment, you need some brute strength. And that's exactly what you get from an old house cue. They get fat fast & get much thicker along the shaft section than pretty much any newer age cue.

Most custom and production cues nowadays measure between .830"-.850" at the joint. A typical Dufferin or Valley supreme house house cue if measure at 29" from tip will often be around .880"+. It may not seem like a lot but it is a HUGE difference. All that extra material makes for a much stronger cue with significantly less flex, translating into more efficient power transfer. Flex in a cue is power absorption. In a given stroke, the ball gets some of the energy and everything opposite the ball gets some of the energy. The more flex in the cue, the less energy the CB gets. In the OP's situation, IMO the cue appropriately fit the playing conditions.

Thanks. That seems to explain how it felt for me.



Jeff Livingston

 

[marek]

You don't take a Ferrari to the bog just like you don't take a Jeep to the races. There's a lot going on in that statement but in a nut shell, I think the right cue was used in the right playing conditions. Old house cues have the spine & mass to move the CB on a typical bar table. The newer LD shafts just don't have it. They shine on Simonis cloth with polished balls because it's a matter of speed control and finesse. On more frictional equipment, you need some brute strength. And that's exactly what you get from an old house cue. They get fat fast & get much thicker along the shaft section than pretty much any newer age cue.

Most custom and production cues nowadays measure between .830"-.850" at the joint. A typical Dufferin or Valley supreme house house cue if measure at 29" from tip will often be around .880"+. It may not seem like a lot but it is a HUGE difference. All that extra material makes for a much stronger cue with significantly less flex, translating into more efficient power transfer. Flex in a cue is power absorption. In a given stroke, the ball gets some of the energy and everything opposite the ball gets some of the energy. The more flex in the cue, the less energy the CB gets. In the OP's situation, IMO the cue appropriately fit the playing conditions.

You wrote it faster than I did:thumbup:

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Huh?

LD shafts flex a lot? The Revo deflects a lot?

Sure, no problem. Every cue has its own properties, one of the main properties being how much energy it can actually transfer to the cueball. I wont go into deep detail, simply put the more stiffer the hit the better energy transfer - the more a cue vibrates after the hit of the cueball the less energy went actually into the cueball itself. In theory if you had perfectly stiff cue which would have no vibration at all then you would have found the cue with perfect energy transfer. In real world you either have LD shafts which flex a lot or you have standard wooden shaft which have amazing energy transfer but you have to compensate for deflection a lot. And then you have all the shafts between which try to find "the golden middle way".
Now there is Revo (carbon shaft) which has the best of both worlds - its super stiff (vibrates very little) yet it still deflects a lot when hitting the cueball with sidespin. How Predator managed to do that is beyond my knowledge, but its a fact that with Revo you can draw the cueball much easier (longer distances) than with maple LD shafts, I would say that only the stiff non-LD wooden shafts can draw the cueball like Revo can. Thats probably what that house cue OP mentioned is - stiff non-LD cue
Hope that helps

 

[marek]

Huh?

LD shafts flex a lot? The Revo deflects a lot?

Yes, thats how LD shafts work - they move out of the way a lot so the cueball can go straight. As opposed to non-LD shafts - they dont flex when hitting cueball with side while pushing the cueball off the straight line..

 

[MattPoland]

Sure, no problem. Every cue has its own properties, one of the main properties being how much energy it can actually transfer to the cueball. I wont go into deep detail, simply put the more stiffer the hit the better energy transfer - the more a cue vibrates after the hit of the cueball the less energy went actually into the cueball itself. In theory if you had perfectly stiff cue which would have no vibration at all then you would have found the cue with perfect energy transfer. In real world you either have LD shafts which flex a lot or you have standard wooden shaft which have amazing energy transfer but you have to compensate for deflection a lot. And then you have all the shafts between which try to find "the golden middle way".
Now there is Revo (carbon shaft) which has the best of both worlds - its super stiff (vibrates very little) yet it still deflects a lot when hitting the cueball with sidespin. How Predator managed to do that is beyond my knowledge, but its a fact that with Revo you can draw the cueball much easier (longer distances) than with maple LD shafts, I would say that only the stiff non-LD wooden shafts can draw the cueball like Revo can. Thats probably what that house cue OP mentioned is - stiff non-LD cue
Hope that helps

Thanks for the explanation. I am getting the impression there are two camps of thought on this topic. One that considers stiffness and energy transfer as a factor of intensity of spin. The other camp that thinks being able to deliver a good stroke as near to the miscue limit as possible (without a miscue) is the only factor. My impression was that Dr Dave’s findings supported only the latter. But I’m not against keeping an open mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[qbilder]

In other words - one piece cue!

Eh, sorta. Since nobody I know of makes two piece pool cues with old house cue dimensions, then yeah. Lots of carom house cues are two piece and fat.

On the flip side of things, more modern equipment makes those old house cues nearly obsolete. They don't have that same magic they seem to have on older equipment. In fact often times they seem bulky & hard to play with. This is where the newer cues with all the LD technology shines bright. It's fascinating to me how these seemingly insignificant nuances can make such a big difference.

Most players today play on varying levels of equipment, so the modern standard custom and production cues are pretty popular. As we lean more & more into the ultra smooth playing tables like Diamond with fast cloth & polished balls, the LD technology is becoming more & more dominant. It's pretty cool seeing the evolution unfold.

 

[marek]

Thanks for the explanation. I am getting the impression there are two camps of thought on this topic. One that considers stiffness and energy transfer as a factor of intensity of spin. The other camp that thinks being able to deliver a good stroke as near to the miscue limit as possible (without a miscue) is the only factor. My impression was that Dr Dave’s findings supported only the latter. But I’m not against keeping an open mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The best you can do is to do this little test -take two cues, first one with LD shaft, the second one with standard maple shaft, both similar radius, ideally same tip. And shoot a draw shot with both, you will see the difference quite easily Btw you can try to shoot a masse shot both with non-LD and LD shaft - while it is quite easy with non-LD shaft thats not the case with LD shaft - for the very same reason i wrote about

 

[Tony_in_MD]

You are better off trying this test with the same cue, two different shafts same tip.

The best you can do is to do this little test -take two cues, first one with LD shaft, the second one with standard maple shaft, both similar radius, ideally same tip. And shoot a draw shot with both, you will see the difference quite easily Btw you can try to shoot a masse shot both with non-LD and LD shaft - while it is quite easy with non-LD shaft thats not the case with LD shaft - for the very same reason i wrote about

 

[marek]

You are better off trying this test with the same cue, two different shafts same tip.

Yes, thats right, even the butt of the cue plays certain role in energy transfer

 

[Tony_in_MD]

So you are using deflection to descibe what the shaft is doing on contact with the cueball.

I am more interested in squirt, the amount of distance the CB is pushed off of the short line when using side spin.

I find it hard to believe that a radially laminated shaft marketed as low deflection moves out of the way more than a standard maple shaft. The only one I have tried is a Tiger shaft which seems very stiff to me.

I have only played with stiff maple shafts with Ivory ferrules, and I like squirt.

Yes, thats how LD shafts work - they move out of the way a lot so the cueball can go straight. As opposed to non-LD shafts - they dont flex when hitting cueball with side while pushing the cueball off the straight line..