Most of the top players now are using 29 or under. John Higgins has a very thin butt of 26.5mm and Graeme Dott has a 29mm. Both have short cues and quite small hands. You will notice however that Graeme has a slightly looser grip.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
About a cue with a thin butt
Collapse
X
-
Originally Posted by The Doctor View PostMost of the top players now are using 29 or under. John Higgins has a very thin butt of 26.5mm and Graeme Dott has a 29mm. Both have short cues and quite small hands. You will notice however that Graeme has a slightly looser grip.
Is there a particular reason why the top players now prefer a slimmer butt?
Comment
-
Thinner butt is easier to manipulate in the fingers and reduces weight at the back. Also if holding with back three fingers allows a longer backswing.
I took one down to 25mm once and it felt really good although I have short fingers and a large palm of the hand. I would say the power comes from the belly and shoulder of the cue and much of the firmness comes from the taper in the last 18 inches and the timber itself.
Just the opinions of a serial tinkerer who is no nearer to finding a solution though.
Comment
-
Originally Posted by jb134 View PostThinner butt is easier to manipulate in the fingers and reduces weight at the back. Also if holding with back three fingers allows a longer backswing.
I took one down to 25mm once and it felt really good although I have short fingers and a large palm of the hand. I would say the power comes from the belly and shoulder of the cue and much of the firmness comes from the taper in the last 18 inches and the timber itself.
Just the opinions of a serial tinkerer who is no nearer to finding a solution though.
Comment
-
What I've found is that the butt dia. is measured from the very base of the cue and not the grip itself. You could order a cue with a 29.5mm butt dia. but where you actually grip the cue (eg 4 inches down) the butt it might be down to 28 or even 27 . And not all cue butts taper down like this, although I think most I've seen do.
Don't like thin grips personally, I think it's something to do with the forearm muscles being used more to grip the cue affects the muscles used for the delivery. Or the thin butt promotes more wrist action or something. 28.5 -29 at the point of grip is about right, so if unsure always get a thicker one just in case
Comment
-
Originally Posted by poolqjunkie View PostI think so.
I do not think ebony/cocobolo/rosewood would make too much difference, perhaps the weight of the shaft would matter more, in my humble opinion.
For myself, 17" forward balance with a thin butt is easier to make than a back balanced cue with the same thin butt because i dont add any lead.
Comment
-
Originally Posted by sanman View PostCorrect me if i am wrong. A cue that has no lead in it especially a 1 piece cue would tend to be more naturally backward balance(approximately 15.5-16 inches from the butt). Also the weight of the cue would be between 17 and 18 ounces for a cue with a 30 mm butt. Of course this would vary for a 3/4 I guess.
With a 3/4 cue a solid piece of ebony is used but with one piece the shaft goes all the way to the end so the ebony are just wrapping around the shaft--in other words it is as if the ebony is bored with an ash dowel in the core, which makes it lighter than a solid piece of ebony.
My cues are usually balanced between 16-17" from the butt. My earlier cues had a wider range of balance points, but now they are all pretty close. Having said that I have not really tried to build anything with a very thin butt, such as 27mm and under.
Comment
Comment