Can anyone shed some light on Dominic Dales comment on cues?

[sootyvrs]

Was reading thins link that was posted elsewhere on this forum relating to an Interview with Dominic Dale

He quoted the below

I had put aside about 8 to 10 cues which were good in terms of rigidity in the shaft which I look for in a cue, and I know more about cues than most with my experience as a billiards collector and historian of cues for the last 20 years so I know about cues and why they play how they do and things like that and I know what I like in a cue as a player. There are cues that suit certain styles of play as well. I’m an all-round player so I don’t like a springy cue, I like a rigid cue.

Any ideas what he means about cues that suit certain styles?

What style would suit a springy cue?

[nrage]

What I've been told in the past is that a rigid cue is better for long pots and power, and a springy cue is better for feel/control in the balls. I can see why that might be so, but I can't say that as a player I have experienced anything like it first hand.

It makes some sense to me that a cue with more flex will feel different on shots of varying power, so perhaps this feedback is useful when in and around the balls. In contrast a rigid cue might feel the same for all shots, or most shots up until very hard shots which might cause flex and feel different. This lack of feedback might make 'touch', 'feel' and control in and around the balls harder.

As for rigid cues being better for long pots, I think this may be because wood is not of a uniform consistency, and will therefore not flex in a uniform fashion. So, a springy cue, on a long hard shot, will flex a lot, and perhaps not uniformly, meaning it might push the ball off very slightly, which might make some difference on some shots over distance.

Alternately it may simply be that rigid cues are also heavier, and that heavier cues are easier to keep on line/straight on long hard shots. And heavier cues are harder to control the weight/touch of in and amongst the balls.

[MikeWooldridge]

What I've been told in the past is that a rigid cue is better for long pots and power, and a springy cue is better for feel/control in the balls. I can see why that might be so, but I can't say that as a player I have experienced anything like it first hand.

It makes some sense to me that a cue with more flex will feel different on shots of varying power, so perhaps this feedback is useful when in and around the balls. In contrast a rigid cue might feel the same for all shots, or most shots up until very hard shots which might cause flex and feel different. This lack of feedback might make 'touch', 'feel' and control in and around the balls harder.

As for rigid cues being better for long pots, I think this may be because wood is not of a uniform consistency, and will therefore not flex in a uniform fashion. So, a springy cue, on a long hard shot, will flex a lot, and perhaps not uniformly, meaning it might push the ball off very slightly, which might make some difference on some shots over distance.

Alternately it may simply be that rigid cues are also heavier, and that heavier cues are easier to keep on line/straight on long hard shots. And heavier cues are harder to control the weight/touch of in and amongst the balls.

What he said

Or to make it even simpler:

Springy - for entertaining players who enjoy a good screw

Rigid - for dull players who would rather knock the yellow safe if they have a chance

[cally]

Give me a bit spring anyday, loves a good screw me....

[jaffa.johnson]

Give me a bit spring anyday, loves a good screw me....

Class.

Dont we all.....

[deant1982]

What he said

Or to make it even simpler:

Springy - for entertaining players who enjoy a good screw

Rigid - for dull players who would rather knock the yellow safe if they have a chance

The yellow is a stupid and pointless ball. I potted a red then brilliant yellow the other day, and the guy I was playing said 3! What is the point of it being on the table only valued at 2?? I thought it was called the gold, and was worth 10, but no. After being told the score of 3 was correct, I decided there and then not to go for the stupid ball unless I have no other choice (ie it is next in sequence).

I also had a go with dads cue the other day, and that wouldn't even let you attempt the yellow. As you move to get into position, it started pulling away, aiming at the black, so it must have been trained well. lol

[ADR147]

What he said

Or to make it even simpler:

Springy - for entertaining players who enjoy a good screw

Rigid - for dull players who would rather knock the yellow safe if they have a chance

lmao an interesting view point.

[old school]

Way to go Mike.

[poolqjunkie]

With a rigid cue you really need to cue through the ball well to get the response you need when it comes to deep screw and such.
I think it really just depends on his cueing action, the type of shots he play, and the 'feel" he is looking for. I am sure some pros like a springy cue and some like it more rigid.

[trevs1]

Was reading thins link that was posted elsewhere on this forum relating to an Interview with Dominic Dale

He quoted the below



Any ideas what he means about cues that suit certain styles?

What style would suit a springy cue?

If you eventually find out what Dominic means with some of his comments, please let me know. I've known him for 20 years, and I still can't figure him out. In fact, if I lived until I am 511 years old, I still don't think I'll fully understand him. He's a one off, that for sure.

[trevs1]

What I've been told in the past is that a rigid cue is better for long pots and power, and a springy cue is better for feel/control in the balls. I can see why that might be so, but I can't say that as a player I have experienced anything like it first hand.

It makes some sense to me that a cue with more flex will feel different on shots of varying power, so perhaps this feedback is useful when in and around the balls. In contrast a rigid cue might feel the same for all shots, or most shots up until very hard shots which might cause flex and feel different. This lack of feedback might make 'touch', 'feel' and control in and around the balls harder.

As for rigid cues being better for long pots, I think this may be because wood is not of a uniform consistency, and will therefore not flex in a uniform fashion. So, a springy cue, on a long hard shot, will flex a lot, and perhaps not uniformly, meaning it might push the ball off very slightly, which might make some difference on some shots over distance.

Alternately it may simply be that rigid cues are also heavier, and that heavier cues are easier to keep on line/straight on long hard shots. And heavier cues are harder to control the weight/touch of in and amongst the balls.

I think it might be best not to look into this too deeply. Dominic is a VERY dogmatic character, and he takes some convincing of a contrary argument to his, even when it seems like a cast iron one. He has VERY strong views on a number of issues, and cues is defintely up there towards the top of that list. I'm not remotely suggesting he isn't correct with some of his views on cues, he does have a great deal of knowledge, and way more than most without any question. But, you (or anyone else) really shouldn't hang off every word spoken and feel that something in there is of benefit to you and your game, it isn't. If you have a cue that works well for you, and you feel that it allows you to perform to at least a good average, or on some occasions , even better, then carry on with it and look into yourself for improvement.

Cues are not the answer to all playing questions.

[hotpot]

A player may feel something special in a cue and pass it on to a player of the same standard who plays a very similar game and the cue will feel totally different and ordinary .

A cue and the feeling it gives whern hitting the ball is a very personal thing and will vary accordingly from person to person .

[nrage]

I think it might be best not to look into this too deeply. Dominic is a VERY dogmatic character, and he takes some convincing of a contrary argument to his, even when it seems like a cast iron one. He has VERY strong views on a number of issues, and cues is defintely up there towards the top of that list.

What I posted didn't come from Dominic, it was just something I have heard a number of times from a number of different people. It made me think about why people might think it, and I came up with a few possible reasons, lets call them "theories". I haven't had enough direct experience with different cues to have any first hand knowledge.