Are these multiple forces something other than the stick's momentum transferred to translational and rotational movement of the CB?
pj
chgo
Why would it be easier to draw with one cue over the other?
- Thread starter Impact Blue
- Start date
Are these multiple forces something other than the stick's momentum transferred to translational and rotational movement of the CB?
pj
chgo
I doubt it.
Probably not. Things that you "know" but can't "prove" often turn out to be perceptual errors. Digging for evidence helps us separate objective truth from personal impression and learn things.
pj
chgo
Since you've been trying to put numbers on it, maybe you have some physics background. Consider a center-ball hit to make things as simple as possible. The only major assumption is that both the stick and cueball travel the same distance during the collision. Barring gross permanent deformation, this is essentially true.Siz said:
First of all, suppose you compared two cues, one that produced a contact time of 1/1000 second, the other 1 second. Both have the same mass and are equally energy efficient. The result of a collision is then completely specified by the initial velocity of the cue. The cueball will take off with exactly the same speed using either one. This is because the force, averaged over time, for the second cue is 1/1000'th as great as for the first cue.
But suppose a constant force is applied by the shooter's hand during impact in order to increase the contact time. Does it? It sounds like a simple physics question, but frankly, I don't know the answer to it. However, a related question can be answered easily: how much of that force will the cueball see? Its time averaged acceleration, Aav, will be:
Aav = (2/B)Vcm/T + (1/B)Acm
where Vcm is the pre-impact speed of the center of mass of the system (stick+ball), T is the length of the contact period, Acm is the acceleration of the center of mass of the system, and B is a number which represents the symmetry of the stick/ball force over time. In an elastic collision, B=1; in a completely inelastic collision (the stick and ball never separate), B=2.
The first term of the equation represents the time averaged acceleration of the cueball when no extra force is applied. Since the cueball's final speed is T times Aav, multiplying the first term by T yields a number which is only dependent on the pre-impact speed of the center of mass of the system. The contact time is irrelevant. (By the way, the speed of the center of mass is Vs/(1 + Mb/Ms), where Mb and Ms are the masses of the ball and stick.)
The second term comes from the extra force applied by the shooter during impact. If this force is F, then:
Acm = F/(Ms + Mb)
and the extra force, F', that the cueball sees is:
F' = (1/B)Mb(Acm) = (1/B)F[Mb/(Ms + Mb)]
So for an 18 oz cue, the cueball sees only about 1/(3 + 1) or 1/4'th of the applied force, assuming B is approximately 1.
How significant can this force be? On a hard hit, the cue is accelerated during the stroke by something like 10 pounds on average, peaking at something like 15 pounds. Typically, it's reduced to a small value by the time the tip reaches the ball, or it's actually negative (decelerating). But if, say, 10 pounds were still being applied, the cueball will see only about 2.5 pounds of this by the above logic.
The amount of force represented by the first term is very large compared to it, ranging up to 400 pounds or so on a hard center-ball hit. You would have to have a huge increase in contact time to make any noticeable difference. But how are you going to get it? After all, the added acceleration of the stick compared to the cueball is:
(10 - 2.5) pounds/18oz = .42 versus 2.5 pounds/6oz = .42 (in strange units)
The "added acceleration" of the stick just reduces the much larger deceleration from the first term of the equation (equal and opposite forces). So it appears that both will be accelerated by this extra force by the same amount. (I'm not exactly sure how that symmetry factor "B" is affected.)
An off-center hit is more complicated as you know, and the nominal impact force is reduced to something like 100 pounds (averaged over time). But it still certainly appears that the extra force will be insignificant by comparison. I think the reduction factor of Mb/(Mb + Ms) is even smaller from other considerations, such as the fact the cueball's time averaged speed is less than the stick's averaged speed during impact (the stick travels farther forward than the cueball). On a center-ball hit, they're the same and equal to the center of mass velocity.
Jim
Last edited:
I commend all the scientific thinkers....
I just feel sorry for them for having to 'prove' things to themselves and everyone else on subjects that so many of us know intrinsically to be true. It must be exhausting, or it would be to me anyway. I know that a mindset such as yours thrives on it though, and it is a challenge mentally and is a kind of fun to you. I can appreciate that (my brother read a 600 page book on atoms when he was 12
)....and the fact that we NEED your kind of thinking to accomplish many tasks!!!!! There is a place for both mindsets, and the true scientific thinker NEVER feels that there is NO DOUBT in the results as there is ALWAYS the unknown factor.
So here's a few factors for you to figure in....or you can passively dismiss them as having NO merit....In physics...and I assume you have some background in this science...the energy in = the energy out. I am surprised that you have not mentioned many factors that would help to prove the opposing viewpoint to your argument. It may be because you have dismissed them as trivial given the short contact period, but they ALL factor in. There are torsional forces, harmonic and vibrational forces, the densities of all materials and how they are connected, the distances of weight and how that effects the force at contact, not to mention the width of handle and how that translates to grip and forward motion, along with all the angle of deflection vectors and accompanying different forces that those create. Come on now if you're going to try to dismiss what thousands of us know...that different cues create different results...then at least put some real effort into it. :smile: Your arguments are so shallow. :smile:
I hope you take this in the good natured way that I meant it. I know it is a challenge (like a good puzzle) for you. Am I right in that?? :wink: It's not personal.
td
Patrick Johnson said:
I just feel sorry for them for having to 'prove' things to themselves and everyone else on subjects that so many of us know intrinsically to be true. It must be exhausting, or it would be to me anyway. I know that a mindset such as yours thrives on it though, and it is a challenge mentally and is a kind of fun to you. I can appreciate that (my brother read a 600 page book on atoms when he was 12
)....and the fact that we NEED your kind of thinking to accomplish many tasks!!!!! There is a place for both mindsets, and the true scientific thinker NEVER feels that there is NO DOUBT in the results as there is ALWAYS the unknown factor.So here's a few factors for you to figure in....or you can passively dismiss them as having NO merit....In physics...and I assume you have some background in this science...the energy in = the energy out. I am surprised that you have not mentioned many factors that would help to prove the opposing viewpoint to your argument. It may be because you have dismissed them as trivial given the short contact period, but they ALL factor in. There are torsional forces, harmonic and vibrational forces, the densities of all materials and how they are connected, the distances of weight and how that effects the force at contact, not to mention the width of handle and how that translates to grip and forward motion, along with all the angle of deflection vectors and accompanying different forces that those create. Come on now if you're going to try to dismiss what thousands of us know...that different cues create different results...then at least put some real effort into it. :smile: Your arguments are so shallow. :smile:
I hope you take this in the good natured way that I meant it. I know it is a challenge (like a good puzzle) for you. Am I right in that?? :wink: It's not personal.
td
What do you think my argument is?
pj
chgo
In short your answer is "trampoline effect"
Throw out the human element "stroke" and "timing", throw out the table, cb, chalk, weather, variables.
By changing (only) cue variables you can change the amount of draw applied to a CB.....the same way you can change the amount of break speed different break cues.
The reason that there are so many "opinions" on what it the best break cue is the "human elemnt"....every one has different strokes and different timing...one cue may perform better for you over another becuase of the "trampoline effect"
This is something that has been around the Golf world for a while now....A "Machine" hitting the same Golf ball under the exact same conditions will get different distances from one club to another even though those two clubs are from appearance "exactly the same"
The difference is in the thickness from edge to center in the club face...minute differences will produce a different trampoline effect and produce as much as 20-30 yards difference....In the Golf world it is referred to as a "HOT" driver...
There is a reason why professionals will hit multiple drivers that have been set up exactly the same....some of them will poduce better ball speed coming off the club head and thus longer drives...They are looking for the Hot Driver....
Even though stiking a cue ball is done on a different plane of attack then a golf ball....I can't imagine that there would be no trampoline effect transferred to the CB....
Timing and stroke speed plays a big factor....In Golf a person that does not produce enough swing speed will lose "drastic" distance by using a shaft that is too stiff...A person with very high swing speed is able to utilize the extra stiffness and multiply the trampoline effect of the entire club... A person with a very high swing speed may find that that lose distance with a shaft that is not stiff enough becuse the timing of the trampoline effect is trown off....
I would imagine that the stiffness of a shaft plays a role similar to what it does in a golf club (even though stricking the CB on a different plane)
An example would probably be in the break shot...big powerful people that produce a great amount of "cue speed" may be better served to use a stiffer shaft becuase that higher cue speed compresses the flex in the shaft and produces a greater trampoline effect...People that don't produce super high "cue speed" may be better served using a more whippy shaft...
I think that each individual has a different timing to thier stroke that is why some people say they can draw better with one cue over another and it is exactly vise versa for others...
My "opinion" is that changing the tip, shaft, balance, weight, wood, grip thickness etc will have "some" effect on the trampoline effect..."some more than others I suppose"
Heck before the age of laminated shafts you always heard the comment "No two shafts play the same"......My guess is becuase the density of wood could be slightly different and produce a different "trampoline effect"
Just my un-scientific opinion...:wink:
Throw out the human element "stroke" and "timing", throw out the table, cb, chalk, weather, variables.
By changing (only) cue variables you can change the amount of draw applied to a CB.....the same way you can change the amount of break speed different break cues.
The reason that there are so many "opinions" on what it the best break cue is the "human elemnt"....every one has different strokes and different timing...one cue may perform better for you over another becuase of the "trampoline effect"
This is something that has been around the Golf world for a while now....A "Machine" hitting the same Golf ball under the exact same conditions will get different distances from one club to another even though those two clubs are from appearance "exactly the same"
The difference is in the thickness from edge to center in the club face...minute differences will produce a different trampoline effect and produce as much as 20-30 yards difference....In the Golf world it is referred to as a "HOT" driver...
There is a reason why professionals will hit multiple drivers that have been set up exactly the same....some of them will poduce better ball speed coming off the club head and thus longer drives...They are looking for the Hot Driver....
Even though stiking a cue ball is done on a different plane of attack then a golf ball....I can't imagine that there would be no trampoline effect transferred to the CB....
Timing and stroke speed plays a big factor....In Golf a person that does not produce enough swing speed will lose "drastic" distance by using a shaft that is too stiff...A person with very high swing speed is able to utilize the extra stiffness and multiply the trampoline effect of the entire club... A person with a very high swing speed may find that that lose distance with a shaft that is not stiff enough becuse the timing of the trampoline effect is trown off....
I would imagine that the stiffness of a shaft plays a role similar to what it does in a golf club (even though stricking the CB on a different plane)
An example would probably be in the break shot...big powerful people that produce a great amount of "cue speed" may be better served to use a stiffer shaft becuase that higher cue speed compresses the flex in the shaft and produces a greater trampoline effect...People that don't produce super high "cue speed" may be better served using a more whippy shaft...
I think that each individual has a different timing to thier stroke that is why some people say they can draw better with one cue over another and it is exactly vise versa for others...
My "opinion" is that changing the tip, shaft, balance, weight, wood, grip thickness etc will have "some" effect on the trampoline effect..."some more than others I suppose"
Heck before the age of laminated shafts you always heard the comment "No two shafts play the same"......My guess is becuase the density of wood could be slightly different and produce a different "trampoline effect"
Just my un-scientific opinion...:wink:
Last edited:
Still calling for Dr Dave!
Good post, Jim - interesting. I particularly liked your 'strange units' (sounds like something to measure a quark in!)
However I do have some issues with your analysis. As I said earlier, my problem lies around the impact and what is happening during that time. I have suggested that, because of the tip distortion and cue flex (and if one considers the ball/cue/arm as a system, the movement of the flesh on the back hand) the forces in operation are complex. Probably too complex to analyze outside the lab.
These complex, non-linear, forces give us problems. You say that the only major assumption made is that the stick and cueball travel the same distance during the collision. Of course the surface of the tip does travel the same distance as the c.b. - by definition. But the cue does not. This is because the tip distorts and does not regain it's initial shape until after the c.b. has left the tip (ie after the collision is over).
There are other assumptions made. For example, the assumption in the second paragraph that the 2 cues are equally 'energy efficient'. But the 1 second cue will be in contact with the c.b. for long enough for the tip to regain its shape, thus transferring more energy to the ball than the 1/1000s cue.
Later it is assumed that the force applied to the cue is constant. Again I am not sure that this is actually a reasonable assumption given the nature of the collision. And if we discard that assumption, then some of the results also fail (for example that c.b. final speed will not necessarily be T times Aav).
While there have been some worthy attempts in this thread to crack this particular nut, I think that it is going to be one for the experimental physicists rather than the theoreticians.
Jal said:
Good post, Jim - interesting. I particularly liked your 'strange units' (sounds like something to measure a quark in!)
However I do have some issues with your analysis. As I said earlier, my problem lies around the impact and what is happening during that time. I have suggested that, because of the tip distortion and cue flex (and if one considers the ball/cue/arm as a system, the movement of the flesh on the back hand) the forces in operation are complex. Probably too complex to analyze outside the lab.
These complex, non-linear, forces give us problems. You say that the only major assumption made is that the stick and cueball travel the same distance during the collision. Of course the surface of the tip does travel the same distance as the c.b. - by definition. But the cue does not. This is because the tip distorts and does not regain it's initial shape until after the c.b. has left the tip (ie after the collision is over).
There are other assumptions made. For example, the assumption in the second paragraph that the 2 cues are equally 'energy efficient'. But the 1 second cue will be in contact with the c.b. for long enough for the tip to regain its shape, thus transferring more energy to the ball than the 1/1000s cue.
Later it is assumed that the force applied to the cue is constant. Again I am not sure that this is actually a reasonable assumption given the nature of the collision. And if we discard that assumption, then some of the results also fail (for example that c.b. final speed will not necessarily be T times Aav).
While there have been some worthy attempts in this thread to crack this particular nut, I think that it is going to be one for the experimental physicists rather than the theoreticians.
Last edited:
Another human element in science
This may seem like a strange analogy but stay with me here......
Up until 1995 men with ED were told that there was a break in the connection between the brain and the penis. This was an unchallenged theory until a urologist at a urologists convention and in front of hundreds of urologists injected his penis with a chemical that gave him an instant erection with no stimulation. Probably would have been hauled off if he had done this anywhere else! From this discovery a drug was created that is one of the most prescribed drugs in America. Before this discovery urologists were probably effected by "Paradigm Paralysis".
From Wikipedia:
Paradigm shifts
Main article: Paradigm shift
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years. In this case, the new paradigm reduces the old to a special case in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is still a good model for approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light.
Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Kuhn's original model is now generally seen as too limited. Making it almost seem like a parallel universe.
Kuhn himself did not consider the concept of paradigm as appropriate for the social sciences. He explains in his preface to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that he concocted the concept of paradigm precisely in order to distinguish the social from the natural sciences (p.x). He wrote this book at the Palo Alto Center for Scholars, surrounded by social scientists, when he observed that they were never in agreement on theories or concepts. He explains that he wrote this book precisely to show that there are no, nor can be, any paradigms in the social sciences. Mattei Dogan, a French sociologist, in his article "Paradigms in the [Social Sciences]," develops Kuhn's original thesis that there are no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are polysemic, the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the inexistance of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote that "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p.12)
Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognise such a paradigm shift. Being in the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.
[edit] Paradigm Paralysis
Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis, the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking..[2]
Examples include Galileo's theory of a heliocentric universe, the discovery of electrostatic photography, xerography, the quartz clock, the mental health profession and psychiatry.
This may seem like a strange analogy but stay with me here......
Up until 1995 men with ED were told that there was a break in the connection between the brain and the penis. This was an unchallenged theory until a urologist at a urologists convention and in front of hundreds of urologists injected his penis with a chemical that gave him an instant erection with no stimulation. Probably would have been hauled off if he had done this anywhere else! From this discovery a drug was created that is one of the most prescribed drugs in America. Before this discovery urologists were probably effected by "Paradigm Paralysis".
From Wikipedia:
Paradigm shifts
Main article: Paradigm shift
Paradigm shifts tend to be most dramatic in sciences that appear to be stable and mature, as in physics at the end of the 19th century. At that time, physics seemed to be a discipline filling in the last few details of a largely worked-out system. In 1900, Lord Kelvin famously stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Five years later, Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity, which challenged the very simple set of rules laid down by Newtonian mechanics, which had been used to describe force and motion for over two hundred years. In this case, the new paradigm reduces the old to a special case in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is still a good model for approximation for speeds that are slow compared to the speed of light.
Philosophers and historians of science, including Kuhn himself, ultimately accepted a modified version of Kuhn's model, which synthesizes his original view with the gradualist model that preceded it. Kuhn's original model is now generally seen as too limited. Making it almost seem like a parallel universe.
Kuhn himself did not consider the concept of paradigm as appropriate for the social sciences. He explains in his preface to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that he concocted the concept of paradigm precisely in order to distinguish the social from the natural sciences (p.x). He wrote this book at the Palo Alto Center for Scholars, surrounded by social scientists, when he observed that they were never in agreement on theories or concepts. He explains that he wrote this book precisely to show that there are no, nor can be, any paradigms in the social sciences. Mattei Dogan, a French sociologist, in his article "Paradigms in the [Social Sciences]," develops Kuhn's original thesis that there are no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are polysemic, the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the inexistance of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote that "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." (p.12)
Kuhn's idea was itself revolutionary in its time, as it caused a major change in the way that academics talk about science. Thus, it could be argued that it caused or was itself part of a "paradigm shift" in the history and sociology of science. However, Kuhn would not recognise such a paradigm shift. Being in the social sciences, people can still use earlier ideas to discuss the history of science.
[edit] Paradigm Paralysis
Perhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis, the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking..[2]
Examples include Galileo's theory of a heliocentric universe, the discovery of electrostatic photography, xerography, the quartz clock, the mental health profession and psychiatry.
Siz said:
A paradigm is essentially a belief that is hard to move away from. Sort of a way seeing things colored by this certain belief IE rose colored glasses. Science should be all about breaking paradigms but often science gets stuck and many theories are rooted in other theories. Sometimes when an underlying theory gets blown out of the water scientists have to go back to other theories to correct them.
Not sure if explained that well maybe I should go back and take english.
poolhustler said:I respecfully disagree
I have watched Triple C (Corey Harper) use a Tiger break cue with a phenolic tip draw the rock like it was no ones business. I think that he mentioned that there is video of him shooting massive draw shots with a break cue also.
That right there proved to me that it is more stroke than cue or tip !!!
Maybe when he gets done at the Open, he will chime in.
Russ.....
i can do what cory does, not as well, but i can draw the ball with a phneic. tip, its a different stroke than a regular tip-for me
Your criticism is perceptive and well-directed, but I still think the "theoretical" numbers are pretty good indicators of what's going on. I'm not shooting for extreme accuracy, just ballpark figures.Siz said:
For instance, because of the soft tissue of the hand, and the fact that the cue moves relatively little with respect to the hand during the short impact period, treating the force applied by the hand as constant is probably a good enough approximation. But it's not a necessary assumption. One could use a time averaged force instead. What is necessary for my argument is that it doesn't shoot up to some large value.
Do you have data that this is true? Looking at some of the high speed videos from Dr. Dave and the Austrian clip, it appears to me that the tip springs back pretty well while still in contact. It would have to be distorted pretty badly as it separated to make a major difference, I think. In figuring the location of the cue's center of mass at the moment of separation (which is admittedly hard to gauge in the videos), the displacement of the deformed tip material gets divided by the entire mass of the cue. So if the tip's center of mass was, say, 1mm back of its fully decompressed position, the position of the center of mass of the entire cue would be affected by 1mm X Mtip/Ms.Siz said:
I see your point and wouldn't deny the possibility of different real-life cues having measurably different efficiencies. I don't think Patrick Johnson's test is designed for this.Siz said:
I guess I already said my piece regarding this, except that, by definition of Aav, the cueball's final speed will be Aav x T, since Aav is its acceleration averaged over time. Rightly or wrongly, I think that you can get around the complexities of the forces, shock ripples for instance, by using time averaged values.Siz said:
I'm wondering if you're postulating a longer contact time because you've observed that "accelerating through" does produce noticeably more cueball speed, or say, backspin on a draw shot. If so, I'd agree that it can and probably does. But this has to do, according to my reckoning, to the shape of the force-time curve while the cue is being driven forward during the stroke, ie, before impact - you end up with more cue speed. Maybe the impression of greater contact time is actually the larger reaction force?
Jim
Siz said:Explained very well.
I am probably being a bit slow, but what I wasn't sure about was what the paradigm is in the context of this thread.
It was a bit off topic but with many of these posts I have observed positions taken that are often a "perceived" way of things happening and then "proven" ways of things happening grounded in science. Each side takes their positions.
The perceivers don't really care how it works if it works. Just look at the aiming threads point and pivot, clock and all of those. It seems to work for some people and that is fine for them. The provers have to know that it can be put into a formula and quantified.
I have heard all kinds of wives tales about grip, grip position, snapping the wrist etc. the list goes on and on and I believe many of these things are bunk. I think that these pardigm shifts happen more often for the perceivers as things that do not make sense in physics are brought to the perceiver's attention. However, there are times when science is jolted by blowing certain theories out of the water.
Just this thread here there are too many variables to account for to say it is simply low you hit the ball and with how much force. At least that is my perception and I have no grounds to prove it but perhaps science should take some of these observations and prove or disprove them.
Spin is a sum of all factors, including tip, shaft, ferrule, joint, butt, bumper, stroke, power, grip, angle of approach, tip positioning on ball, etc. Everything matters. There is no clear cut easy answer.
Nothing will substitute skill. Give a C player a perfect cue & he'll still struggle with draw. Give an A player a broom stick with a tip & he'll get draw. I'm a solid B player with a hit-n-miss A game & I can draw with nearly anything to a level plenty high enough to play the game. There are not many cues I can't get 1.5 table length draw with, without really having to force it. I'm sure a solid A player or pro quality player can do much better, but what I can do is already more than enough for playing the game.
I build cues. My goal from the beginning was to build a cue easy to play with, because I don't have the natural talent to achieve & retain a solid game. I have to work very hard to keep a B+/A- level of play, and have to really use brainpower & knowledge to fill that void of natural talent. The cues are just an extra aid to make things a wee bit easier, but ultimately it's my stroke & ability that dictate how much spin I can achieve. Don't get me wrong, I reserach & experiment with cue characteristics constantly & have made tremendous advances in performance. I used to believe I could reduce the skill & talent factor but looking back over the years of research & development, I now clearly realize that it's impossible.
It's not the cue, it's the player. Granted, a great cue in the hands of a great player is far better than a junk cue in the hands of a great player, but the player is great no matter what he's using. My point is, if you want to get good with draw & spin, practice it instead of trying to buy it.
Nothing will substitute skill. Give a C player a perfect cue & he'll still struggle with draw. Give an A player a broom stick with a tip & he'll get draw. I'm a solid B player with a hit-n-miss A game & I can draw with nearly anything to a level plenty high enough to play the game. There are not many cues I can't get 1.5 table length draw with, without really having to force it. I'm sure a solid A player or pro quality player can do much better, but what I can do is already more than enough for playing the game.
I build cues. My goal from the beginning was to build a cue easy to play with, because I don't have the natural talent to achieve & retain a solid game. I have to work very hard to keep a B+/A- level of play, and have to really use brainpower & knowledge to fill that void of natural talent. The cues are just an extra aid to make things a wee bit easier, but ultimately it's my stroke & ability that dictate how much spin I can achieve. Don't get me wrong, I reserach & experiment with cue characteristics constantly & have made tremendous advances in performance. I used to believe I could reduce the skill & talent factor but looking back over the years of research & development, I now clearly realize that it's impossible.
It's not the cue, it's the player. Granted, a great cue in the hands of a great player is far better than a junk cue in the hands of a great player, but the player is great no matter what he's using. My point is, if you want to get good with draw & spin, practice it instead of trying to buy it.