RefrainReyes
Active member
Yes?
What is the best pool cue joint/pin type?
- Thread starter BrokeHustler
- Start date
It’s easy to say one joint feels the same as the next. I tend to disagree with that.
One other thing, snooker players are hip to this more so than pool players. One piece cues feel different than jointed cues.
I’ve played with a few very dialed in very well made - piece cues and oh boy are they nice.
Joints do change things-that's my opinion.
Balance and how the cue goes through the ball are more important as well.
Best
Fatboy<——-where is my 6 piece ramin wood Chinese cue?
One other thing, snooker players are hip to this more so than pool players. One piece cues feel different than jointed cues.
I’ve played with a few very dialed in very well made - piece cues and oh boy are they nice.
Joints do change things-that's my opinion.
Balance and how the cue goes through the ball are more important as well.
Best
Fatboy<——-where is my 6 piece ramin wood Chinese cue?
That may be, but my point was that they are solid and play no different or worse than anything else. And were/are fine on Predator cues which are a great product.
Goosekeeper
Active member
Can’t disagree. I’ve loved every 5/16:14 I’ve owned. Never had even the slightest issue. Solid and classic
I was responding to the whippy shaft of the Meucci does nothing in a previous post.
I really don't know why but I could draw the cue ball with much less effort with the Meucci then the Schon.
The Meucci took a couple of weeks to adjust to.
Sadly it fell apart and warped in 6 months.
My very first cue that I owned was a two piece Dufferin back in the 1960's. Played with it for years...in fact still own it for sentimental reasons. First decent production cue was a Predator 4K-3 with a Uni-Lock joint. It was great for the first six months, then even with periodic cleaning it would loosen off during a night of play. Now I own a number of production and custom made cues. My main two players are Dan Dishaw cues with radial joints. They never loosen up, I enjoy the feedback I get from both of Dan's cues. My personal preference is a radial pin. Just my humble opinion.
The ebony Dishaw is reserved for when I really want to beat someone...lol, and the linen wrapped one is my every day player.
The ebony Dishaw is reserved for when I really want to beat someone...lol, and the linen wrapped one is my every day player.
Attachments
It wasn't the flex in the shaft. Only tip offset amount without a miscue determines how much spin you get. 3C players use SUPER stiff shafts and spin the living hell out of it. I owned some of the really good Original Meucci's and never saw any more spin than my stiffer cues. Just another 'poolism'.
Tadaimarlon
Well-known member
You might be right, I just thought it feels different to me. Let's call it personal preference haha
My point is the joint does NOT determine how a cue hits/feels to any important degree. That test i mentioned had over 50 players test 16 cues each. That's 800+ test hits and over 70% could NOT tell what joint was in what cue. Most couldn't even identify their own cue.
Some have referred to the blind test of joint types done by John McChesney and others in the 1990s. Here is a repeat that was originally in a discussion group called RSB. This can be found in the archive of that group if you want to see the original.
(as reposted by Murray Tucker on AZB)
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.
John McChesney
Texas Express
National Nine Ball Tour
PO Box 700814
Dallas Tx 75370
Voice 214 495 tour (8687)
Fax 214 495 7616
j...@texasexpress.com
http://www.texasexpress.com
(as reposted by Murray Tucker on AZB)
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.
John McChesney
Texas Express
National Nine Ball Tour
PO Box 700814
Dallas Tx 75370
Voice 214 495 tour (8687)
Fax 214 495 7616
j...@texasexpress.com
http://www.texasexpress.com
Not spin but draw.
The Meucci would draw the ball with much less effort then the Schon resulting in a much more accurate shot with less effort.
Agree! I remember this one really great player in my area, Randy, was a monster with his Meucci. On the 4 x 8 anyone could get it. He bought himself this beautiful Schon....and his game dropped by like 3 balls LOL...he was so frustrated he had to go back. Those Meucci's played great! they were the PREDATOR of their day. Made pool easier to play for everyone, but yes the QC wasn't always good!
95% of the time if you see old threads with new posts it's from a new member that found something through a search
Joined Jan 4, 2022
Goosekeeper
Active member
I’m exactly the same way. I was using Sniper tips, layered layered layered… switched to French Champions and milk duds. It is a weird feeling going in and having the very guy, who designed your current layered tip, cut it off to put on a single layer tip. There’sa little fun smack talk, but he’s a good sport
Draw IS spin. A Meucci won't draw the ball any more than any other cue. Factors such as the tip or even the balance point may have made your stroke more effective but it wasn't the cue itself making more spin.
well it did.
As I recall it was 100% of the players who could not tell what joint was in what cue, as in nobody demonstrated any statistically significant massive success with being able to tell which joints were on which cues. It was 70% of the individual guesses that were wrong which is a different thing. All told the player's in the experiment didn't really do much better than the success rate that would have come from not even hitting with any of the cues and instead just throwing out random guesses.
Last edited:
Whats your point?
Exactly what I said. It was not 70% of the players that could not tell what joint was on what cue as the poster I responded to had said, but rather it was essentially 100% of the players that did not have any statistically significant success being able to pick out which joints were on which cues. The 70% was the amount of the individual guesses that were incorrect, a very different thing.