Why would it be easier to draw with one cue over the other?

Draw

For once someone started a thread that I enjoy talking about. I feel it is the tip on the cue and the persons stroke. Butterflycues
 
tip size

i can get more english on the cue with a 12 mm tip than i can with a 13 mm tip. so i can get more draw using a smaller tip. but i'm more accurate with a 13 mm tip than a 12.
 
JB Cases said:
Actually it's the "action" that you can get on the cueball with a Meucci that makes them (I should say made them) attractive to players. When you play with an older pre-red dot/black dot 32 layer shaft from Meucci you can really juice the ball.

The problem with Meucci isn't in the way it plays it's how they hold up. If you have one that holds up real well and you are used to it then great. I know one pro player who has burned through several sponsors and while he is sponsored by a cuemaker he will still pull out his Meucci when he gambles. Of course I won't reveal who it is.

I will tell you this story of an event I was fortunate enough to witness. One year at Valley Forge Mike Sigel was holding court and going on and on about how great his cues are and how many World Championships he has and how many titles he has. Bob Meucci was standing in the back of the crowd and yells out loudly, "And what cue were you using when you won all those titles Mike?" Mike doesn't answer. Bob walks away.

(it was Meucci)

And Meucci happens to be a great example of the difference in results with the same shot, same hit, same player.
Click to expand...


i agree whole heartedly with the meucci pre dot shafts/cues being able to juice a cue. that's why i started using one way beack when. the only meucci i have that have held up over the years are my european (it's a meucci original) and my m6 (one of the very early cues after the switch to the cusive logo). everything else i've had problems with and will no longer purchase from meucci. and i remember the days of mike shooting with meucci. but back then who didn't - jim rempe, floyd mataya, lori jon jones, buddy hall, david hubbard, sammy jones, and the list could go on.
 
JB Cases said:
I have to disagree with you Pat. I know you have a lot of experience but so do I. Mine however comes from experience with around a hundred brands of cues that we have carried. And in the last two years it comes from experience with cues and shafts that have deliberately differing aspects of construction.

This is because I deal with the cue factory and test their products. They have developed several new shafts and I get to test them all.

If what you say is true then there is absolutely no basis for Predator, Tiger, OB1, or any other so-called performance shaft to be on the market other than radial consistency. Do you want to go on record and say that the ONLY thing that affects the amount of spin imparted to the ball other than the stroke quality is the tip condition?

Do you really believe that if the tip were taken out of the equation that two cues of equal weight but fairly different taper and balance would impart the same amplitude to the cue ball?

I will agree that the tip has a lot to do with it. But as a person who has tested shafts with the same tip brand, shape and hardness (as measured with a Durometer), but with different construction techniques, like different tapers, different types and sizes of rods in the core, 4, 6, 8, and 10 splices, flat laminated, wood pin, G-10 pin, radial pin, and so on, I have to say that you're wrong that it's all in the tip.
Click to expand...
JB,
Are you saying that you can create a different spin:speed ratio hitting the exact same point of the cue ball, stroking the same line by using different shafts?

The physics is pretty set on this one as I understand.

Or are you suggesting that the shaft properties allow a tip to strike further out on the CB without miscuing?

What you could be noticing is different amounts of squirt. Low squirt cues give the appearance of getting more spin because they squirt out closer to the cue line.

Colin
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I agree stroke is the important thing, but I don't agree that contact time has anything to do with it. It has been shown on high speed video that contact time is about the same no matter how you stroke the ball - it's the same for robots and humans.

But thinking about increasing your tip/ball contact time can make you stroke more deliberately, which can make you stroke more accurately, which can make you get better draw.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's why a piston stroke might work better.
 
Bigkahuna said:
I disagree "stroke" has everything to do with it. I am sure you will have your opinion though.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Bigkahuna said:
IMO if the shaft is whippy I mean the spine is further back towards the joint the shaft will flex a bit more. This flex will make the cue shaft deflect downward as the tip strikes the ball thus the tip will be in contact with the ball longer. I am not sure what anyone else thinks about this?
Click to expand...

Yes! i finally found someone with same thought as me! I have a Schon with a 314-2 shaft on it. The shaft is around 12.25mm and it is more whippy compare to my friend's12.75mm. And the outcome? i found it easier to draw using the more whippy shaft. This is NOT the first encounter. I have played with different cues and most of them give me the same feeling.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I agree stroke is the important thing, but I don't agree that contact time has anything to do with it. It has been shown on high speed video that contact time is about the same no matter how you stroke the ball - it's the same for robots and humans.

But thinking about increasing your tip/ball contact time can make you stroke more deliberately, which can make you stroke more accurately, which can make you get better draw.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I know I have read somewhere about tip contact time or "dwell". Of course this does not mean it is true. I have not seen this video is this one of Dr. Daves?

What I can tell you is that I have done some instruction with players who cannot draw well. When I tell people some of what I said in the earlier post they can draw. If I just tell them to hit lower on the ball they cannot. Is this mostly all stroking error, Yes.

Really it is much easier for a robot to draw consistently if there are only two places of contact with the cue, three places of pivot and a consistent velocity for the cue. Humans have far more variables to deal with too much to list here.

Yes, I do "feel" I can draw with some cues better than others. Is there a an explanation that can be found in physics for my "feeling", I doubt it. We are just humans.
 
IMO, If you already have a good stroke, good tip and are drawing the rock consistanly, then the other factor in 'draw' is the Chalk.

Masters old style (non Flag) is better than the Flag version and definitely better than Silver Cup.

Clean cloth will have less friction and the cue ball usually ends up spinning more before it starts to draw backwards.

Dirty tables (filled with chalk from previous play) will add to the friction and draw quicker (less spinning) than clean cloth.

Humid dirty cloth will draw quicker (less spinnig) but will slow down quicker due to the Drag of the humid cloth.
 
Answering the original question

Impact Blue said:
Just throwing it out there.

Players, cuemakers, and theorists opinions welcomed. :smile:
Click to expand...

To answer this original question I do have some thoughts but nothing I can prove or care to prove using science experiments. I just do not have the time. So, I guess I do not have "the" answer. However I do know other people do "feel" that shaft, tip, chalk, stroke, all play a role. As far as distance goes cloth will play it's roll as well.

I know I can draw the length of the table and do it with enough control to get me within one diamond of my intended target. My preferred shot for position, no, because I can be more consistent with other methods. But, if I have to I am fairly confident I can execute if needed. Although people who can't draw might be impressed this shot is usually as a last resort.
 
Colin Colenso said:
JB,
Are you saying that you can create a different spin:speed ratio hitting the exact same point of the cue ball, stroking the same line by using different shafts?

The physics is pretty set on this one as I understand.

Or are you suggesting that the shaft properties allow a tip to strike further out on the CB without miscuing?

What you could be noticing is different amounts of squirt. Low squirt cues give the appearance of getting more spin because they squirt out closer to the cue line.

Colin
Click to expand...

No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that different construction techniques provide different results.

Funny you should mention how far out the tip can strike the cueball without miscuing. I have developed a training ball that is due to hit the market very soon where one of the primary functions is a no-miscue zone. This is a circle on the ball that you are guaranteed not to miscue if you hit the ball inside of it. I have tried it will all sorts of cues from phenolic tipped ones to elkmasters and it works.

Maybe I am noticing some reduced squirt effect. It does not matter. The original question is whether one cue can "draw" more than another. If cue A squirts less and that translates into more effective spin than Cue B then cue A can "draw" more than cue B with the same effort. Can cue B draw as much as Cue A? Sure if you adjust for squirt and add some power, which is the point right?

There have been a lot of things that were set in stone which are now disproven. I can agree that two cues of disparate construction techniques would have the same spin/speed ratio when both cues strike the same point at the same speed if that's what you say has been observed. To that I say then that the very real effect of differences in how cues actually perform in this regard have another reason then. Perhaps the person playing with a whippy Meucci and a hard Joss West is not really hitting the cueball in the same place with both cues although they are aiming at the same spot.

It could very well be that the taper is causing the tip to go somewhere other than where the shooter thinks it is. Thus the shooter may actually be hitting lower on the ball with a very thin tapered shaft (as has been theorized in this thread already) then they are with a thicker shaft taper.

In any event the observation that cues do indeed "play" differently is very real and is much more than just the tip.
 
JB Cases said:
No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that different construction techniques provide different results.

Funny you should mention how far out the tip can strike the cueball without miscuing. I have developed a training ball that is due to hit the market very soon where one of the primary functions is a no-miscue zone. This is a circle on the ball that you are guaranteed not to miscue if you hit the ball inside of it. I have tried it will all sorts of cues from phenolic tipped ones to elkmasters and it works.

Maybe I am noticing some reduced squirt effect. It does not matter. The original question is whether one cue can "draw" more than another. If cue A squirts less and that translates into more effective spin than Cue B then cue A can "draw" more than cue B with the same effort. Can cue B draw as much as Cue A? Sure if you adjust for squirt and add some power, which is the point right?

There have been a lot of things that were set in stone which are now disproven. I can agree that two cues of disparate construction techniques would have the same spin/speed ratio when both cues strike the same point at the same speed if that's what you say has been observed. To that I say then that the very real effect of differences in how cues actually perform in this regard have another reason then. Perhaps the person playing with a whippy Meucci and a hard Joss West is not really hitting the cueball in the same place with both cues although they are aiming at the same spot.

It could very well be that the taper is causing the tip to go somewhere other than where the shooter thinks it is. Thus the shooter may actually be hitting lower on the ball with a very thin tapered shaft (as has been theorized in this thread already) then they are with a thicker shaft taper.

In any event the observation that cues do indeed "play" differently is very real and is much more than just the tip.
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying those things to hassle you JB :)

But to make the point, as you expanded upon, that if there is an effect that produces noticeable differences in performance, they we should try to isolate the variable/s causing that.

With the low squirt shafts they employed the low tip-end-mass advice that physics guys had discovered. I think the cue makers / experts often fall short in coming up with explanations for their performance claims.

If these differences do exist, and the variables can be identified, then the cue makers could learn how to maximize these variables toward certain performance attributes.

I don't know what is causing the differences you've noticed. Perhaps it is kind of accidental lower hitting caused by the cue taper, or perhaps a thinner shaft at the bridge lowers the contact point 1/2mm, or perhaps some whippy shafts, when stroked with a swoop bend a little before impact causing a slightly lower hit...or pehaps cue weight changes one's stroke. Whatever the cause, it could and should be identified with proper testing.

I can't think of a mechanical property of a shaft that would change the nature of how one can spin the CB beyond those already identified. Perhaps we'll find one. Perhaps the expert cue makers can suggest some starting points for possible variables.

Colin
 
While I think a cue may have a small influence over draw I maintain it is a persons stroke that has the most influece.

Stroke 80%
tip 18%
Shaft and rest of the cue 2%

Outside factors would include cloth speed, dirt or chalk build up on the table and humidity.

The fact that I can draw the ball with little effort with my phenollic tipped break cue indicates to me it's the stroke not the cue.
 
Increasing tip contact time

Bigkahuna said:
I know I have read somewhere about tip contact time or "dwell". Of course this does not mean it is true. I have not seen this video is this one of Dr. Daves?

What I can tell you is that I have done some instruction with players who cannot draw well. When I tell people some of what I said in the earlier post they can draw. If I just tell them to hit lower on the ball they cannot. Is this mostly all stroking error, Yes.

Really it is much easier for a robot to draw consistently if there are only two places of contact with the cue, three places of pivot and a consistent velocity for the cue. Humans have far more variables to deal with too much to list here.

Yes, I do "feel" I can draw with some cues better than others. Is there a an explanation that can be found in physics for my "feeling", I doubt it. We are just humans.
Click to expand...

Scary! I had been wondering the other day whether there was any high speed video showing this phenomenon (or lack of it).

I am with Bigkahuna 100% on this one. My experience has brought me to the conclusion that the underlying physical basis of a good quality hit is to be found in the tip contact time. Not only in draw shots but all strokes (except perhaps the stun shot). As Bigk put it so well, this is the difference between a stroker and a poker.

However I am also quite happy to be proved wrong (at least far as the physics goes, even if I decide to cling on to it as a useful model to explain the feeling or appearance of a good hit). Is there anything around on the Web - one of Dr D's productions perhaps? What would be really interesting would to be a graph showing the deceleration at impact when an A player is making various shots against a bar banger doing the same. Stroker vs poker!
 
I am with Bigkahuna 100% on this one. My experience has brought me to the conclusion that the underlying physical basis of a good quality hit is to be found in the tip contact time. Not only in draw shots but all strokes (except perhaps the stun shot). As Bigk put it so well, this is the difference between a stroker and a poker.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
jrt30004 said:
i know this will make everyone cringe and i will be cast out into the az wilderness for saying it but...........i get the most evil draw with my meucci plain jane european series cue. it has always had a well shaped and scuffed lepro tip and it has the original no dot no bs shaft. i have heard good things about low deflection shafts (predator and ob) for draw and all types of english but i actually like a regular old meucci original maple shaft and all the flex that comes with it. i can length of the table draw with little effort. let my flogging begin for saying good things about meucci - i know how you all feel:)
Click to expand...

I am going to have one of my shafts turnded down to match a meucci-18 inch pro taper to compare the draw I get from each. I have been looking for an old pre-dot meucci for awhile, it's what I grew up playing with & I haven't been able to move the rock the same since I got rid of it years ago. And yes I can draw more than table length, but it was so effortless with a meucci. I also rember the shaft being very soft wood, that combined with the 18 inch taper could be the answer.
 
I just bought a pre dot Meucci that's about 25 yrs. old and it plays great. Stroke is probably most important in drawing the ball. Throwing stroke out. I think a stiffer shaft does better for me than a whippier one for draw.
 
Impact Blue said:
Just throwing it out there.

Players, cuemakers, and theorists opinions welcomed. :smile:
Click to expand...
I like your question. I have a good answer. Nobody will read it. Nobody is answering your question, anyway.

There. That should do it.

Fred <~~~ hope this helps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top