Cue Makers as players

[tinytim139]

As many of you know the top 2 regarded as the best at this present moment are century break players. Do you think this gives them an advantage to the insight of what makes a good playing cue over other makers that play to a lesser standard

[platt]

Simple answer is YES...

[MattCash]

It helps, because if they play the game themselves to a high standard then they know what the player needs in a cue.

[ferret]

I am going to re-word you initial post.

Do you think Trevor White and Mike Wooldridge cues are better than John Parris cues?



We all know Trevor is an Ex-pro, Mike plays to quite a high standard but what about JP, anyone know anything about his snooker playing history?

[sunny3909]

I am going to re-word you initial post.

Do you think Trevor White and Mike Wooldridge cues are better than John Parris cues?



We all know Trevor is an Ex-pro, Mike plays to quite a high standard but what about JP, anyone know anything about his snooker playing history?

John was not a century break player.He said in an interview on worldsnooker that he was a 50-60 break player.

[tinytim139]

I am going to re-word you initial post.

Do you think Trevor White and Mike Wooldridge cues are better than John Parris cues?



We all know Trevor is an Ex-pro, Mike plays to quite a high standard but what about JP, anyone know anything about his snooker playing history?

Well yes and no ferret. Did parris start as just making cues and getting his feedback from customers or just trial and error to finding out what makes good cues? i have 2 weeks to wait for my trevor white so not fishing for who to buy from as i did that before xmas . However if you've never played the game how should you know what characteristics make a good playing cue. I know theres individual differences to consider but there is parameters to keep within to making a good playing a cue- consistently

[KeithinFrance]

I don't really know if it's vital to be able to play the game to a high standard to be able to make good cues; I'd say you need to know more about wood to make a good cue and if, on top of that, you can play, it's a bonus, that's all. To make a good cue, you have to have access to good quality wood and woodworking knowledge and ability. I know of a guy in France who is a woodworker, who can't play at all, but who has good ebony and exotic hardwoods, selected some straight-grained ash and made some really top-class cues for a few friends of his. He oil-finished the cues, bought some ferrules and fitted them and they're honestly as good a cue as I've seen. I haven't played with one, but I've seen what they can do in the hands of good players.

So, I don't think it's indispensable to be able to play to make a very good cue, but I'm sure it's not a bad thing, either.

[platt]

JP cues are hit and miss with the ones i've owned and sold, But i've never come across a bad cue yet from Mike or Trevor plus there is a personal touch from them that special.

[trevs1]

I am going to re-word you initial post.

Do you think Trevor White and Mike Wooldridge cues are better than John Parris cues?



We all know Trevor is an Ex-pro, Mike plays to quite a high standard but what about JP, anyone know anything about his snooker playing history?

I don't know where this idea came from, but I have never played as a professional, though it seems a lot of people think I have.

I have played in plenty of 'Pro-Am' events, but that's about as far as it went for me. I NEVER had any intentions of playing on a more serious level than as a pastime/liesure activity.

Regarding the O.P's question...

No, I don't think it offers a significant advantage for a maker to have any pedigree as a player.

The reasons for this are pretty simple.

Many of the greatest players I know, from amateur to top level pro's, have little or no knowledge of what makes a good cue, or, why a cue plays the way it does. This might come as a shock to those who read this, but it's a fact. Just because a person knows how to use a cue, it does not mean they automatically have any worthwhile knowledge about them.

For the likes of John Parris, he'll no doubt have seen and heard a multitude of things from various players over many many years, and also, will have learnt himself to some degree, to establish ideas of what appears to work well, and perhaps what doesn't work so well. Naturally, I can't speak for him on this, but I'd assume this is at least some way true. The same is fairly likely to be true of some other makers, but perhaps not all of them.

On a personal note, I do feel I have pretty extensive understanding of what a cue is doing, and quite often, why it's doing it. BUT, this is only because I have looked into these issues on the cue side of it, as well as the technical side of it. I suppose the fact that I have been a pretty competent player has helped me to do that, but to say it's the reason I now know what I do, would be wrong and misleading in my opinion.

Knowing what makes a good cue is not that tricky when you have a good amount of experience with cues. However, having said that, it's not possible for any cue maker to accurately say that a particular cue they make is going to perform in a specific way and to a players exact liking. If anyone has heard any cue maker tell them that, he is either lying to you, or doesn't know what he is talking about. The art of making cues is NOT a precise science, so it's not always possible to produce a cue which does 'exactly' what a player wants it to do. Still, there are definite rules of making them which if obeyed, will usually result in a very solid, reliable and trustworthy cue. There are definitely certain margins to work within when building a cue, these margins being like guidlines to ensuring the best possible chances of excellent results in the finished product, BUT, it is NEVER a certainty.

So, does it mean that a cue maker who also happens to be a very good player, is ensured of being a better cue maker....???

In my view, no, it doesn't.

[eaoin11]

That makes a lot of sense. It couldn't be possible to predict exactly how responsive a cue will be before it's finished.

If that were possible, all the top players would be using the best brands available right now. But they aren't, which suggests they had to 'find' their cue, whether it was some rack cue (e.g Ken Doherty and Peter Ebdon), or they had a maker do multiple cues for them to choose from (e.g Parris for Ronnie O'Sullivan).

And even less accomplished players can appreciate the difference between a responsive and lifeless cue, which I imagine to be the most important thing for a cue maker to understand from a player's prespective.

[Blondie]

...I don't think it matters really that you need to play to a high standard to be a good cue maker, and to make good cues. I think it helps if they have an 'understanding' of the game, and maybe some experience of it too. But the bottom line for me is that a good cue maker will be able to advise a customer on both the 'technical aspects' of making a cue, and all that this entails, and at the same time is also able to understand a 'player's perspective and requirements'.....

[trevs1]

That makes a lot of sense. It couldn't be possible to predict exactly how responsive a cue will be before it's finished.

If that were possible, all the top players would be using the best brands available right now. But they aren't, which suggests they had to 'find' their cue, whether it was some rack cue (e.g Ken Doherty and Peter Ebdon), or they had a maker do multiple cues for them to choose from (e.g Parris for Ronnie O'Sullivan).

And even less accomplished players can appreciate the difference between a responsive and lifeless cue, which I imagine to be the most important thing for a cue maker to understand from a player's prespective.

Well, oddly enough it is possible to make a cue more responsive, and also make one which is less responsive. There are certain criteria to producing cues like this, from the selection of the timber, to how it's made up, including weight and taper etc. As I mentioned in my post earlier, there are 'margins' to making cues, which if altered slightly in one direction or another, can and do produce differences in how cues feel and perform. Obviously, the 'exact' amount of difference in feel and performance is what I was referring to as "Not a precise science", and so it's kind of tricky to predict with 'real accuracy' the way a specific cue will play. But, once the cue is used, it soon becomes apparent what can be done to perhaps make it perform more or less well in a certain area, because the cue kind of tells you that as you're using it.

This aspect of a cue "telling you as you use it", is exactly why many people will say it's best to try cues before you buy them, because it gives you the opportunity to see what that cue is doing in your hands. I'm sure most people reading this thread will know 100% what I mean by that.

Regarding the last point in the quote above.....

I wouldn't say that the response in a cue is really THE most important thing for a cue maker to understand from a players perspective. This is mainly due to the fact that different people will have different priorities when asking about getting cues custom built. What one sees as a must, might not even be a consideration for another, and so on.

The most important thing for a maker, is to understand the individual customers needs and requirements, and, to have sufficient knowledge to be able to deliver on that. That probably applies whether it's cues we're talking about, or anything else bespoke and made to specific requirements.

[eaoin11]

Well, oddly enough it is possible to make a cue more responsive, and also make one which is less responsive. There are certain criteria to producing cues like this, from the selection of the timber, to how it's made up, including weight and taper etc. As I mentioned in my post earlier, there are 'margins' to making cues, which if altered slightly in one direction or another, can and do produce differences in how cues feel and perform. Obviously, the 'exact' amount of difference in feel and performance is what I was referring to as "Not a precise science", and so it's kind of tricky to predict with 'real accuracy' the way a specific cue will play. But, once the cue is used, it soon becomes apparent what can be done to perhaps make it perform more or less well in a certain area, because the cue kind of tells you that as you're using it.
This aspect of a cue "telling you as you use it", is exactly why many people will say it's best to try cues before you buy them, because it gives you the opportunity to see what that cue is doing in your hands. I'm sure most people reading this thread will know 100% what I mean by that.

Regarding the last point in the quote above.....

I wouldn't say that the response in a cue is really THE most important thing for a cue maker to understand from a players perspective. This is mainly due to the fact that different people will have different priorities when asking about getting cues custom built. What one sees as a must, might not even be a consideration for another, and so on.
The most important thing for a maker, is to understand the individual customers needs and requirements, and, to have sufficient knowledge to be able to deliver on that. That probably applies whether it's cues we're talking about, or anything else bespoke and made to specific requirements.

Yep I follow what you're saying. It sounds like you can 'fine tune' a cue after it's been tried? That's interesting. Beyond changing tip size or length I've never tried to alter a cue's playing qualities.

Agree with the second point too. On playability, I know some players are obsessed with the amount of screw they can get on the white, but I guess feedback might be one characteristic that is more important.

To me feedback tells me what I've done to the white ball and therefore where it's going to go, with some cues I've got no idea from one shot to the next.

Are there any other playing charcteristics players might want to enhance in their cues?

[poolqjunkie]

Well, on the other hand if a guy cannot even make 15 points to save his life, and he makes a cue for me and then tells me it is a great cue with lots of power, responsive great balance and all that blah blah...I probably would have some problem believing or trusting him.

[mooneyy]

That's true. But on the other hand it has nothing to do with the original question.

I could imagine that being a good player helps a cue maker to translate his
customers wishes into a cue.