Wooden Joint vs Steel Joint, Longoni/Adam/Schuler cues...

3

3c4ever

Registered
Hi Everyone, let’s talk about cues!

I love cues!!! And I currently own a Longoni, Custom Pro 5 Star, and a Ray Schuler with steel joint. What about you? Do you love cues?

I guess most players have their own preference/specifications about their favorite cues. For me, I'm still trying to figure out which cue is the best for me to use for this game.
And if you’re planning to buy a cue, then this post definitely will help you make a better choice.

There are many good custom cue makers out there such as Layani, etc...
but I'd like to mention the most common brand ones, and those are Longoni made in Italy, Adam made in Japan, and also the less popular cue made in US, Schuler cue.

Here are some characteristics about each cue in comparison:
Longoni Cues:
-Most popular cue play by more than 10 world class players
-The Wooden joint and so the cue plays more like a one piece cue.
-Wooden joint provides more feed back, more English control but lack of
power compare to steel joint.
-Butt is slightly bigger than that of Adam cue/Schuler cue and I heard
that the bigger Butt helps with generating more English. You think that’s
true?
-Shafts, S2, Pro2+, are more straight compare to Schuler’s constant
shaft that has more of an oval shape.
-Butt and Cue are shorter than Schuler’s and pool cues.
Adam Cues:
-Not too special, only a few models that I see but they are cheaper than
Longoni’s, hence more affordable.
-One thing that makes Adam cues standout is the Wooden Double Joint.
Blomdahl’s model has this joint and I don’t know how good it is compare
to Longoni’s and Schuler’s.
-I’ve never had one and I’m not planning to buy one either
Schuler Cues:
-The best hitting cue in my opinion, very solid because of the steel joint
(with a little bit of wood on the side) and a strong constant shaft.
-Steel joint allow less feed back, and less English control.
-Most cue are 19 oz or more and that is suitable for Pool but for three
cushion, the recommended weight is 18 oz.
-Non of the world class players play besides former US champ. Hugo
Patino.
-I personally still like the Schuler very much….

Here are some questions I have:
-Which Longoni shaft do you think is best S2, Pro2+, Pro69, or the
stronger Pro4? (I’m trying to buy one.)
-Which shaft is better for Schuler cue: Constant and super constant
shaft?
Since Longoni cue and Schuler cue are totally different: from Shape, shaft, length, joint, to design. Which would you choose to play with?

Any opinion about these cues? Let’s share it here!!!
 
I am playing with a Schuler and i like it a lot.I had a Longoni 5* kasidokostas 1 and it was great too! I bought Schuler because mine has great design (in my opinion) and i want to use different staff then the most of the players do.
Nikos Polychronopoulos (you can watch him tonight live- number 14 in the world rank) uses for years Schuler cues. He is a friend of mine and i trust his knowledge about billiard.
 
I have an Adam Musashi 3C cue and I love how it has so much power and great english control. It's like DJ08 with steroid.
 
dieckman or kilby

You did not mention Dennis Dieckman or Ron Kilby, both of these guys build great cues. I use a Kilby and love it, I have also hit with a Dieckman and really liked that as well. They both use the wooden pin joint, both their websites have lots of info on their build philosophy's.
 
I have had a Schuler, Kilby, and a Dieckman. All of them played well. Although each definetly had a different feel to them. I personally prefer my Dieckman.
 
"I have an Adam Musashi 3C cue and I love how it has so much power and great english control. It's like DJ08 with steroid."

gallogg,

I hit with a Musashi 3C today, very power and great english control.
I'm thinking about buying a DJ08, the cue made for the number one ranking player in the world. And yes, with steroid.:smile:

All,

Every brand of cue has its own taste and personal preference plays a big role in the liking.
S2 is certainly a good shaft, and d. jaspers is using one.
 
zensteve said:
In my humble opinion I think the S2 is the best shaft.
Click to expand...

I own, a high end schuler, Layani (Blenkinberg II Caudron /special Edition) and a bunch of othe Layani cues that I have in stock.
My every day Playing Cue is a Sang Lee butterfly (wood Joint)
I use to play with a schuler and Layani, But I prefere a good wood joint cue over a metal joint, I thing Layani, schulerm and Adam Japan have the best metal joints on the market.
For wood joints Dieckman, and Kilby make the best wood joint billiard cues available today, Longoni and Hanbat are also great cues.
Longoni has a very solid production
I love all the high end Billiard cues, and I plan to get a Dieckman cue very soon. (Dennis if you read this, you now which cue I want)
I currently have about 10 billiard cues for sale and 3 other ones that are not for sale, and once I get my Dieckman's cue it will never be for sale just like my table.
Regards
Bassel
 
The eternal question revisited.
I believe that no cue will make a good player out of a poor one.
And a good player will be playing well with any cue.
However, most of us are on a never-ending quest for the perfect cue.
Let us talk about theoretical physics...

Conventional theory has always been that the benefit of greater shaft stiffness is less cue ball deflection.
Which was the basic justification for making segmented shafts.
But Predator claims exactly the opposite:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL SHAFT
A stiff shaft sounds like a good thing, but a heavier, stiffer shaft actually pushes through the cue ball, causing it to deflect away from your target. That's what's known as cue ball deflection.
314 SHAFT
The front end of a Molinari shaft is significantly lighter and more flexible than that of a standard shaft, allowing the cue ball to push the shaft aside rather than the shaft pushing the ball out of line. The result? Straighter shots, every time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, continuing in this line of thinking, the thinnest, most flexible shafts should give us the least deflection, therefore making a stiffer, or segmented shaft should be detrimental to the objective.
That would be just great, because a flexible shaft is the cheapest to construct!
Does our own experience not teach us that this is not so?

And to return to my earlier statement above, that a good player will be playing well with any cue, didn't TB become multiple world champion while he still played with wood jointed Adam cues? Case in point!

For many years I played 3-C with a high end Schuler, and could never fault it.
I currently play 3-C with a Caudron cue, and have used a very light Kilby cue for many years for Libre and 47/2. I can't fault either of them.
 
How about this one...? Je veux!
what-isfr.jpg
 
Blomdahl and Molinari / Predator

Alfred said:
The eternal question revisited.
I believe that no cue will make a good player out of a poor one.
And a good player will be playing well with any cue.
However, most of us are on a never-ending quest for the perfect cue.
Let us talk about theoretical physics...

Conventional theory has always been that the benefit of greater shaft stiffness is less cue ball deflection.
Which was the basic justification for making segmented shafts.
But Predator claims exactly the opposite:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL SHAFT
A stiff shaft sounds like a good thing, but a heavier, stiffer shaft actually pushes through the cue ball, causing it to deflect away from your target. That's what's known as cue ball deflection.
314 SHAFT
The front end of a Molinari shaft is significantly lighter and more flexible than that of a standard shaft, allowing the cue ball to push the shaft aside rather than the shaft pushing the ball out of line. The result? Straighter shots, every time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, continuing in this line of thinking, the thinnest, most flexible shafts should give us the least deflection, therefore making a stiffer, or segmented shaft should be detrimental to the objective.
That would be just great, because a flexible shaft is the cheapest to construct!
Does our own experience not teach us that this is not so?

And to return to my earlier statement above, that a good player will be playing well with any cue, didn't TB become multiple world champion while he still played with wood jointed Adam cues? Case in point!

For many years I played 3-C with a high end Schuler, and could never fault it.
I currently play 3-C with a Caudron cue, and have used a very light Kilby cue for many years for Libre and 47/2. I can't fault either of them.
Click to expand...

Torbjorn Blomdahl played for over 30 years with a double-jointed Adam cue (and swore by it). He has switched to a low-deflection Molinari / Predator 3C cue and is currently back on top of the rankings: not an easy feat in this day and age of blisteringly high 3-cushion averages.

Obviously, the cue does not make the shots for the player - but we still must recognize that not all cue designs perform equivalently, especially in this technological time.

-Ira
 
Bert van Manen said:
http://professorqball.com/the-stick-we-never-seem-to-be-able-to-stick-with-by-bert-van-manen/
Click to expand...
So true, Bert, you echo my thoughts pretty closely. All the same, we often can't help ourselves, because when it comes to love or to cues emotion trumps logic every time. Which brings me to another point neither of us has mentioned in our dissertations: You DO get an improvement for all the extra money you pay for the cue of your current dreams, but it is a placebo effect, and rather temporary. Soon the honeymoon is over, and your GA drops to previous levels.
However, as the saying goes - better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all!
:wink::wink::wink:
 
As long as the cue is 'better', it results in improvement:

http://www.gmcvo.org.uk/olympic-cycling-competitiveness-and-aggregation-marginal-gains

Dave Brailsford:

"Brailsford who, four years ago, first dropped the key phrase "aggregation of marginal gains" into a conversation with the Guardian...attempting to explain the team's philosophy of making small improvements add up to a significant gain in performance.

...able to gain such a dominant competitive advantage (not) by any single significant technique but by making many small improvements.
 
While We're on the subject of what cue does what! The late, One Pocket and Bank Pool HOF player, Leonard "Bugs" Rucker of Chicago along with Eddie Taylor, were the MOST feared One Pocket an Bank Pool players gambling of their era, (edit) of ALL time! Regarded by MANY as #1 and 2! Bugs was a life long friend of mine. I miss him very much.

In the 50 plus years Bugs played pool, He NEVER owned his one cue! He would borrow a cue from someone, but, 95% of the time just grab a cue OFF the RACK! This IMHO is a HUGE spot to give ANY opponent, Bugs had MORE natural ability than any other pool player I've seen in my 50 years of being around billiard rooms!

When he passed away, his family was amazed as to why ALL these people they had NEVER heard of should up for his wake and funeral, many pool players. In the over 50 years he played NO ONE in his family new he was a WORLD CLASS pool player. When he used go out of town on the road for weeks at a time and come home with a bankroll, they just thought he was some kind of Gangster! He was actually ashamed of being a pool player, this is the reason he NEVER owned his own cue and case, he didn't want to have to bring it home and explain it to his family! Truly amazing to me!

I guess my point here is, "Its the man behind the cue, not the other way around!" I'm sure the TOP player's in the world would be able to play with a broomstick, and still average over 1.00. JMHO!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top