What is a cue's "hit" to you?

[KCRack'em]

My kingwood Capone had "the hit." I let others try it, and they typically had the same eyebrow-raised expression that I had when I first picked it up and hit with it.

As noted about ebony, different woods "ping" and transmit the hit differently. I believe kingwood has really good tone.

The odd part is that I took a break from the game and couldn't get the feedback from the Capone that I was used to when I returned after about 6 years. I had carpel tunnel syndrome the whole time I owned the cue. I suspect it had worsened and may have impacted my ability to feel a cue's hit. I've since had surgery. I don't find that I'm as sensitive to the feel of a cue as some guys claim to be, although I do like some cues better than others. And, I traded the cue that I said I would never give up. I'm still chasing that perfect cue.

A while back I purchased a RAT sneaky. It has a fabulous hit. That hit and feel seemed to result from the shaft. It fit another butt and seemed to improve that cue. I'm a firm believer that a lot of the magic is in the shaft as illustrated by this little experiment. I also traded this cue. I couldn't get used to the taper.

I think it boils down to perception and preference. What we feel and what we like will vary widely. And describing it is no easy task.
Karl

 

[Lexicologist71]

To me, the 'hit' defines what is felt upon hitting the cue ball. I prefer a firmer feeling hit.

 

[Lexicologist71]

A combination of all three of your definitions really, although I'd like to add something on the aspect of the "purely subjective" in the first: there's got to be a reason/reasons why people agree on some things to be preferable from a qualitative perspective (i.e. "better") to others, even if we lack objective means of measuring what properties/characteristics make us agree.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

Kinda like there has to be a reason so many people think Nicole Kidman is hot. Regardless of popularity, it is still subjective.

 

[acousticsguru]

Kinda like there has to be a reason so many people think Nicole Kidman is hot. Regardless of popularity, it is still subjective.

No one claims it's objective. But to say it's subjective seems to imply it's purely in the eyes of the beholder. If that were true, there could be no agreement. It follows there's got to be something about the thing itself.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[JMW]

2) a player's preferences in "hit" and "feel" are highly fluid and can change dramatically over time as this process of adaptation takes place.

Yep... and thus the Wanted/For Sale section. I always hate the post where someone is trying to buy back a cue that they regret having sold.

 

[mantis99]

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I think the "hit" itself is highly overrated. People pay an awful lot of money for cues that "hit" well, and often pay a lot of money for cues without even feeling the hit before they buy.

I have always liked a stiffer more solid feeling hit with as little feedback as possible. The kind of hit I feel is produced by a ss or phenolic joint with a stiff shaft. When I first got my tiger xpro shaft, which I think is one of the stiffer LD shafts, I hated the hit because it felt so much more whippy than my previous shaft. However, after playing with it for a few months, I don't even notice it anymore.

Also, I have three different cues that all feel different in "hit", but in reality do the same thing to the CB. They also vary quite a bit in price, but if I play enough with any of them, even the cheapie graphite cue I have, I adjust easily to the hit, and can play the same. The only thing I have a hard time fully adjusting to is tip size. I like smaller tips and now play with an 11.75mm tip, and just never feel right playing with a 13mm tip. That has more to do with addressing the cb with the tip than it does with the hit of the cue though.

For me, I just can't see where paying a lot of money for a certain "hit" is worth it as far playability and how it effects your game goes. For a piece of art sure, for an instrument to improve your game, I just dont see it. LD shafts may be a different story, but not regular ones; at least not in my experience.

 

[acousticsguru]

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I think the "hit" itself is highly overrated. People pay an awful lot of money for cues that "hit" well, and often pay a lot of money for cues without even feeling the hit before they buy.

I have always liked a stiffer more solid feeling hit with as little feedback as possible. The kind of hit I feel is produced by a ss or phenolic joint with a stiff shaft. When I first got my tiger xpro shaft, which I think is one of the stiffer LD shafts, I hated the hit because it felt so much more whippy than my previous shaft. However, after playing with it for a few months, I don't even notice it anymore.

Also, I have three different cues that all feel different in "hit", but in reality do the same thing to the CB. They also vary quite a bit in price, but if I play enough with any of them, even the cheapie graphite cue I have, I adjust easily to the hit, and can play the same. The only thing I have a hard time fully adjusting to is tip size. I like smaller tips and now play with an 11.75mm tip, and just never feel right playing with a 13mm tip. That has more to do with addressing the cb with the tip than it does with the hit of the cue though.

For me, I just can't see where paying a lot of money for a certain "hit" is worth it as far playability and how it effects your game goes. For a piece of art sure, for an instrument to improve your game, I just dont see it. LD shafts may be a different story, but not regular ones; at least not in my experience.

Hit and feel clearly affects a good player's game insofar as it affects his or her mind. In my experience teaching, there's no difference to a beginner because simply, there can't be (= there's no gadget that will make them play better all of a sudden, what they need is work on their technique etc., i.e. as long as one lacks the tools, there's little use in changing cues), and while there shouldn't be to a top player (= who may or may not be able to play with the proverbial broomstick), if there's anything that can make them feel at ease or "at one with themselves", it doesn't matter what, objectively speaking, it may be.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[mantis99]

Hit and feel clearly affects a good player's game insofar as it affects his or her mind. In my experience teaching, there's no difference to a beginner because simply, there can't be (= there's no gadget that will make them play better all of a sudden, what they need is work on their technique etc., i.e. as long as one lacks the tools, there's little use in changing cues), and while there shouldn't be to a top player (= who may or may not be able to play with the proverbial broomstick), if there's anything that can make them feel at ease or "at one with themselves", it doesn't matter what, objectively speaking, it may be.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

My point is more that a good player will fairly quickly adjust to any decent cue they are given within reason, and after a month or so with any cue, the difference in "hit" will become inconsequential this making hit a bit overvalued. I don't think it "clearly" makes a difference at all to a good player.

 

[acousticsguru]

My point is more that a good player will fairly quickly adjust to any decent cue they are given within reason, and after a month or so with any cue, the difference in "hit" will become inconsequential this making hit a bit overvalued. I don't think it "clearly" makes a difference at all to a good player.

It does to all the ones I know at least. They also tend to agree about hit and feel. That doesn't mean they'll insist a cue is technically speaking superior. But the fact alone that they like the hit and feel of it may form the basis for their emotional attachment to a cue. Good players tend to know the difference between "better" and "subjectively preferable" - but there are many who'll go for the latter, given the choice. That is, if indeed there is such a difference: cues that provide nice hit and feel tend to be at least reasonably good cues to begin with.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[mantis99]

It does to all the ones I know at least. They also tend to agree about hit and feel. That doesn't mean they'll insist a cue is technically speaking superior. But the fact alone that they like the hit and feel of it may form the basis for their emotional attachment to a cue. Good players tend to know the difference between "better" and "subjectively preferable" - but there are many who'll go for the latter, given the choice. That is, if indeed there is such a difference: cues that provide nice hit and feel tend to be at least reasonably good cues to begin with.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

Well have to agree to disagree I guess. I simply dont think that you could take two quality cues with a different "hit", give them to a good player and have them play at a different level if they are given any reasonable time to adjust to the cues. Any good player I know makes that transition rather easily. That doesn't mean that they wouldnt prefer the feel of one over another given the choice, just that they could play just as well with either given a reasonable adjustment period.

 

[acousticsguru]

Well have to agree to disagree I guess. I simply dont think that you could take two quality cues with a different "hit", give them to a good player and have them play at a different level if they are given any reasonable time to adjust to the cues. Any good player I know makes that transition rather easily. That doesn't mean that they wouldnt prefer the feel of one over another given the choice, just that they could play just as well with either given a reasonable adjustment period.

The only reason they'll play better with the one they prefer is that it makes them feel more at ease, or as I put it teaching, it's minus one aspect to think about.

The transition itself depends less on their preference than the actual quality of the cue. After all, what is it that makes a cue "good" or "bad"? A majority of players will adjust to a good cue in no time, whereas a majority of players is unable to ever adjust to a bad one - that's all there is to it.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[CJ Wiley]

What is a cue's "hit" to you?

- A purely subjective measure of what feels good to the user

- The amount or quality of information transmitted to the user about the cue's impact with the cue ball

- How easily/effectively the cue moves/controls the cue ball

Of course, "hit" can be a combination of things, but please choose the single definition that's most important to you (or add your own).

And please explain/elaborate as much as you like.

There's no right or wrong answer to this question - I'm interested in the variety of (equally valid) ways players appreciate a cue's "hit".

Thanks in advance,

pj
chgo

I've used virtually every type joint and I'm not sure I could tell the difference (by Just the hit) as John McChesney had mentioned.....John was one of my original partners in CHAMPS BILLIARDS and we discussed cues on several occasions ... one thing we agreed on was there's something about a wood to wood joint with the big screw that has a distinct hit that "seems" to get more quick English on the cue ball...of course this may be because of the "shrillness" of the type hit it produces...I have an original Bludworth that Leonard made for me and it is an example of this and I've hit some super high speeds with this cue ...the most important thing is that it deflects and spins back exactly the same on a 9' shot....this has always been the determining factor for me to trust a cue.

 

[SCCues]

Excellent!

From Murray Tucker, copied from a similar "hit" post on the front page...

"Here it is. I keep it handy all the time.

Here is a Post from John McChesney circa 1999:

Here's something interesting we tried in 1991:
At an event we had 16 cues with the butt, joint and the ferrules covered
with masking tape...then numbered. No one could "see" if the cue was a
steel, plastic or wood joint (as in a Pete), nor detect by the style of
ferrule. We had 70 players...each hit balls with the cues throughout the
weekend.

The results:
Of nearly 800 attempts over the time period, the players guessed wrong about
what type joint was in the cue more than 7 out of 10 times. A top pro
(Meucci staffer) happened to be there, having done an exhibition and the cue
he liked the most during the attempts: He thought was surely a Meucci,
plastic joint when in reality it was an older Adams with a piloted steel
joint; and additionally guessed the Meucci he shot with as a cue with a
steel joint. Again, I maintain that cues with different joint materials may
sound differently; may be balanced differently, but what is "hit" ? Doesn't
"hit" have to do with all the senses: Vibration (feel), sound, balance, etc.
What is a "soft" hit? What is a "hard" hit? (what does this mean, if not
the sound the cue makes upon impact, or are people ref. to the vibration in
the butt?) Does a hard hit vibrate more and make a different sound? A soft
hit vibrate less with a different sound? I maintain that the primary
criteria that differentiates one cue from another begins with: The tip
(soft, med or hard) The shaft diameter and density of the wood The taper (or
stiffness of the shaft) To this day, I still don't believe the joint has
much to do with the reaction of the cueball off the shaft, rather it is the
3 aforementioned that have far more bearing on how a cue plays than anything
else. Remember, what makes the predator shaft play differently is what is
located at the tip, inside the shaft, the ferrule and the laminations....not
the joint or butt. In closing, our experiment asked which cue the players
liked best: Of the 70 players, nearly 55 liked the hit of two cues with
different numbers: When the two were exposed, they both were sneaky petes,
wood to wood joints, (one a Scruggs and the other a Huebler); both about 19
oz., both about 13 1/4mm and tended to be on the stiff side of "hit". By
the way, the 55 who liked the hit of these two cues: more than half thought
they would be steel jointed."

I agree with the above, but to stay on topic, to me the hit is "The amount or quality of information transmitted to the user about the cue's impact with the cue ball" as you said in your opening statement.

Rep to you for this excellent post. I read this years ago and I'd forgotten about it.

James

 

[8onthebreak]

The "HIT"

To me also, the "hit" is about sound and vibration.

For those who think that expensive cues are over-rated and that the hit is all in our mind...then why do we all describe the exact same thing?

It's THE PING...yes, I love that high pitched ping! charge me extra!!!

It's the way it vibrates when I use English, and if I couldn't feel that, or hear that...I wouldn't pay 2 cents for the cue...even if it's pretty

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is like saying that you figure out you need new brakes after you run into a brick wall. The sound and vibration don't happen until after you hit the ball. How does this help you in any way, whatsoever?

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread.

dld

That's like saying it doesn't help to notice what the cue ball did after you hit it. The more information you have - before, during or after the fact - the better your brain can remember what you did to produce that result.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've used virtually every type joint and I'm not sure I could tell the difference (by Just the hit) as John McChesney had mentioned.....John was one of my original partners in CHAMPS BILLIARDS and we discussed cues on several occasions ... one thing we agreed on was there's something about a wood to wood joint with the big screw that has a distinct hit that "seems" to get more quick English on the cue ball...of course this may be because of the "shrillness" of the type hit it produces...I have an original Bludworth that Leonard made for me and it is an example of this and I've hit some super high speeds with this cue ...the most important thing is that it deflects and spins back exactly the same on a 9' shot....this has always been the determining factor for me to trust a cue.

CJ, can you elaborate a little on the part above in blue? Do you mean it produces consistent results over different shot lengths?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The sound is not the result which matters to you, thus it is unnecessary information.

It's part of the feedback from hitting the cue ball the way you did, just like seeing how the cue ball reacts. It reinforces your memory.

This isn't some casual idea I just came up with - it's well known that the more "contextual information" your brain gets the better and more detailed your memory (and your ability to reproduce the action).

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The sound and the result both happen after everything you have control over. The sound is not the result which matters to you, thus it is unnecessary information....

This is only true if you take only one single shot in your whole life. Learning pool is the act of taking note of the results with the hope of improving on future shots.

 

[RRfireblade]

It isn't the same at all. The sound and the result both happen after everything you have control over. The sound is not the result which matters to you, thus it is unnecessary information.

Your are basically saying that after you ran into the brick wall, instead of noticing that your brakes are bad, you notice that the brick is old and the mortar is cracking.

Thanks for the laugh, tho.

dld

Bad analogy.

Pool is about consistancy. Its not about hitting a wall , its about not hitting the wall.

To use your example, feedback is like going hard around a corner and squealing the tires but you manage to avoid hitting the wall.

Now you know what it felt like to push it that hard and next time around the corner, you make an adjusment and maybe you don't squeal the tires. Each time around that corner, even as there are subtle changes lap after lap, you listen for those tires to squeal and you continually dial your driving in. Maintaining performance and consistently not hitting the wall.

 

[mantis99]

The only reason they'll play better with the one they prefer is that it makes them feel more at ease, or as I put it teaching, it's minus one aspect to think about.

The transition itself depends less on their preference than the actual quality of the cue. After all, what is it that makes a cue "good" or "bad"? A majority of players will adjust to a good cue in no time, whereas a majority of players is unable to ever adjust to a bad one - that's all there is to it.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________



„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

I think the main difference in our view points is that I simply don't give as much credit to the play of a person to their cue stick as you may. I simply don't believe a cue can make that much difference, thus making the hit of the cue much less relevant.