Cues and Throw.

[ADR147]

There used to be a time when I'd have given my views on a thread like this, but those days are pretty much behind me.

I will say (or type) this though...

For ANY PLAYER, a cue which is soundly predictable will always be better than one which is not so predictable. A cue which throws (deflects) the white less, or virtually not at all, is ALWAYS an advantage. That does not mean that such a cue is magic and will improve the game of a person, that's down to ability and experience more than anything else.

As for the tip thing.... Well, if anyone is suggesting a cue throws or not is simply due to the tip, or that throw / deflection can be totally eradicated by using an alternative tip, that is utter garbage and needs to be ignored, no matter who tells you it's true.

Tips can make significant differences to cues yes, but on their own do not cause a trustworthy cue to become untrustworthy.

we sort of agree! for me predictability is everything and you can predict the squirt with a good cue.

[ADR147]

I agree with ADR's first post, if you have a cue you like just learn to use that and forget throw. When you evaluate a cue think more about what you can do with it. Being able to impart a lot of side and still make shots consistently is just one of the things you might want from the cue. If you can do that then throw isn't an issue, but I think being able to play stun accurately and measured screw shots that let you stop the ball where you want it are more important.

Peter Ebdon won the WC with a cue that he says throws a lot, so the argument that it will hurt anyone's development isn't convincing. Maybe it's better not to use too much side anyway?

On tips, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that tips might influence throw. I don't know if the hypothesis has been tested, but wouldn't be surprised if it has been by someone in the US. But I would have thought that elks being softer (on average) than a laminated tip would have thrown less for the same reason that whippier cues do.

at least somebody does, i thought i was going mad, maybe we should all use accurate cues!

[Benno]

But I would have thought that elks being softer (on average) than a laminated tip would have thrown less for the same reason that whippier cues do.

They don't, it's weird and definitely counter intuitive. Try it for yourself.

[Leo]

Everyone suits a particular cue, this you know within a frame of playing, so if it doesn't feel right sell it and buy another cue simples!

[golferson123]

Cues and Throw.

exactly leo,and if you know why it don't suit you then all the better

[trevs1]

I agree with ADR's first post, if you have a cue you like just learn to use that and forget throw. When you evaluate a cue think more about what you can do with it. Being able to impart a lot of side and still make shots consistently is just one of the things you might want from the cue. If you can do that then throw isn't an issue, but I think being able to play stun accurately and measured screw shots that let you stop the ball where you want it are more important.

Peter Ebdon won the WC with a cue that he says throws a lot, so the argument that it will hurt anyone's development isn't convincing. Maybe it's better not to use too much side anyway?

On tips, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting that tips might influence throw. I don't know if the hypothesis has been tested, but wouldn't be surprised if it has been by someone in the US. But I would have thought that elks being softer (on average) than a laminated tip would have thrown less for the same reason that whippier cues do.

Yes, to some extent, picking a cue and getting on with it is not in itself bad advice, even though it's a bit generalised. I would agree with your points about using stun and screw and gauging pace, because these aspects are more important in the development of any player. The fact that Ebdon won major titles using a cue which in his view was less than perfect does go to show that players can get to an incredible standard using very average cues. Whether that extends to awful cues I'm not so sure. Peter Ebdon's case however is no endorsement of poor cues, and, should not be looked upon as any reason to just put up with anything and get on with it. I could give numerous accounts of various players, both pro's and top level amateurs who have played amazing snooker with garbage cues. That's not where we need to look, because they are the tiny minority. I would agree that using side too often or unnecessarily is no good thing also, and players should first learn to steer the cueball as much as possible by striking higher or lower on the centre line of the cueball. That is far more reliable and keeps things as simple as possible, which is always the best method to adopt. Still, there comes a time and a place whereby using side is necessary, and, without the ability to do that to a standard that matches the rest of a players game, it will be a massive problem and will restrict their progress. How many scenarios are there we could use where side is essential.?...Here's a few, I could go on.

1) Off straight blue into centre pockets needing to steer the cueball between baulk colours.

2) Off straight pink into black corner pockets where natural angle of cueball from the cushion takes cueball away from black when both colours are required to win frame.

3) Deep screw from straight black into black corner pockets when next (required) red is up near blue spot and unpottable into baulk pockets.

4) Thin clip safety shots where natural line of cueball off cushion is travelling into another ball obstructing path back to baulk.

And so on and so on..... All of these scenarios (and so many others) demand some amount of side spin applied to the cueball in order to execute the shot as required.

Relating to throw however, and if we were to ask players this question, what do you think the outcome would be.?

Question.... Given the choice, would you prefer to use.....

A) a cue which enabled you to choose the correct line of aim every time, even when applying side to the cueball.?

B) a cue which demanded you MUST make a significant allowance for your aim when applying side to the cueball.?

What is the likely answer most would give.?

Clearly, we would ALL prefer to use a cue which allows us to strike the white with side, but, still aim to the correct point of contact on the object ball, or at least, very very close to that correct point of contact. Any allowance for aim is then minimal and far easier to judge. The alternative is to use a cue which means we need to make a much larger allowance away from the correct point of contact, therefore causing far greater guesswork to the shot.

There is a reason why players tend to choose cues with minimal or limited throw / deflection. The above is obviously why.

I'm not even going into the tips thing in any depth, because we would (or could) be here forever and a day discussing it. It's enough to say that it's the smallest factor in why cues deflect the cueball though, because the tip can be changed to something else so readily which allows the cue to be at its best. The cue is THE issue in this.

[The Doctor]

Interesting thread.
For me, ferrule material and tip type can have a big effect on how a cue plays with side.
I have had whippy cues that throw loads and currently have a really stiff cue that has very very little throw.
I'd agree that you have to learn how a cue plays and get on with it but also some cues just ain't suitable for an individual.
One aspect that has a massive effect on how the White throws is the tension in the grip through the hit. example being, a loose grip will throw the cue ball off line much less than a tight grip when striking the White.

[trevs1]

exactly leo,and if you know why it don't suit you then all the better

Leo's post is not entirely true though, because a good trustworthy cue is a good trustworthy cue, no matter who is using it.

Whether a cue is good for any particular individual is easily decided, because it only really comes down to two separate parts.

1) - Does the cue behave as I want it to when I play a range of shots and does it give me what I am asking of it.

2) - Does it feel comfortable in terms of shape and size... i.e... length, weight, ferrule size, balance, taper etc etc.

For some players / people, there is a third element, and that's aesthetics. Some people are very caught up in how a cue looks, such as how black is the ebony, how even does the grain appear on an ash shaft, does it please me in any and every way when I look at it and so on. This aspect of a cue is far less relevant though, and for some, matters not a jot.

The parts 1 and 2 above are what really matters, and as long as the cue is giving a player what he demands on delivery, and, if it feel comfortable in his hands, then that's pretty much all there is to it. It doesn't matter what the badge says, who made it or what it cost. I have no problem in saying this because it's true, and I clearly don't stand to profit from it. Quite the contrary.

Of course, for anyone to be able to understand points 1 and 2 to any acceptable degree, they need to be of at least a reasonable level or standard of proficiency. Unless they are, they will just not understand or feel what a cue is giving them.

[billabong]

It doesn't matter what the badge says, who made it or what it cost. I say this even though I don't stand to profit from it. Quite the contrary.

Have you and Crispian been discussing how to lessen the workload on your cues & Crispian's cases ?

He told me his cases were crap.

[guernseygooner]

Why do you get more screw reaction with one cue over another but can generate more side with the 'less screw' cue? Its the same with playing a follow through. Hitting the white in the same spot with one cue will get the reaction you expect but another cue will stun the white more and you have to hit the white higher.

Is this all shaft characteristics, throw etc?

[golferson123]

Cues and Throw.

the only difference is the cue ball can escape sideways but can't escape downwards

[denja]

if you can play, you can play, and you will learn the throw of the cue you are using and play the shot accordingly.

Good comment ! Just to add some fuel to the fire Guy walks into club picks up a beat up rack cue and then does a Ronnie on you ! you stand there with your top of the range cue and cant help wondering did I waste my money ! (If you can play you can play) very wise words.

[Leo]

Good comment ! Just to add some fuel to the fire Guy walks into club picks up a beat up rack cue and then does a Ronnie on you ! you stand there with your top of the range cue and cant help wondering did I waste my money ! (If you can play you can play) very wise words.

In a word that's very true, i could pick up and most half decent players here would pick up a rack cue and average mr smith with his wooldridge £700 cue wouldn't get a look in.

[vmax4steve]

Why do you get more screw reaction with one cue over another but can generate more side with the 'less screw' cue? Its the same with playing a follow through. Hitting the white in the same spot with one cue will get the reaction you expect but another cue will stun the white more and you have to hit the white higher.

Is this all shaft characteristics, throw etc?

How do you know for certain that you hit every shot exactly the same with both cues ?

I'd bet that Trump could play his deep screw long distance shots just as good with your cue as he can with his.

If you're playing top run thru and get more stun than run thru, you've played a poor shot. The cue ball will react to where as well as to how it's struck. As I stated in a previous post, you can stick a tip to a metal pole and still play good snooker, it's simply a matter of what you're used to and your game develops around what you're used to.

I believe that every player likes the cue he learned with, he made his game with it and got used to its characteristics, and then rather stupidly some will change it because of this or that or whatever and then spend an awful long time and a lot of money in finding one that is almost the same.

Take the case of Alex Higgins, used a Burwat Champion from the off and won his first world title with it in '72. It broke because Alex used very thin tips that other people discarded and hit the ball really hard at times, so his search for a new one began, and all the excuses came with it, despite playing beautiful snooker at times with cues he didn't like. He never gave himself the time to get used to something that was very similar, every time his timing was a little bit out and he played poorly it was always the cues fault and never anything to do with him.

It's all about ego in the end, you either admit that you're not as good as you think you are and learn to live with it, or you practise like hell to get better or you continually make excuses and blame your tools.

[Kieran m]

How do you know for certain that you hit every shot exactly the same with both cues ?

I'd bet that Trump could play his deep screw long distance shots just as good with your cue as he can with his.

If you're playing top run thru and get more stun than run thru, you've played a poor shot. The cue ball will react to where as well as to how it's struck. As I stated in a previous post, you can stick a tip to a metal pole and still play good snooker, it's simply a matter of what you're used to and your game develops around what you're used to.

I believe that every player likes the cue he learned with, he made his game with it and got used to its characteristics, and then rather stupidly some will change it because of this or that or whatever and then spend an awful long time and a lot of money in finding one that is almost the same.

Take the case of Alex Higgins, used a Burwat Champion from the off and won his first world title with it in '72. It broke because Alex used very thin tips that other people discarded and hit the ball really hard at times, so his search for a new one began, and all the excuses came with it, despite playing beautiful snooker at times with cues he didn't like. He never gave himself the time to get used to something that was very similar, every time his timing was a little bit out and he played poorly it was always the cues fault and never anything to do with him.

It's all about ego in the end, you either admit that you're not as good as you think you are and learn to live with it, or you practise like hell to get better or you continually make excuses and blame your tools.

Ronnie is a classic case of the cue mattering very little. All that matters is that the cue you use you are comfortable with with, the rest regarding the cue is in the mind.