1 piece or 2 piece with 3/4 joint?

[itsnoteasy]

Thought I read somewhere, maybe on the cuegate thread, that all Thai cues are made from two pieces of ash but if IIRC the joint is a around six inches from the bottom, so it's far lower than a three quarter joint. I don't have a clue how cues work but for me it seems sensible that the shudder from a shot will dissipate more evenly over a one piece as the joint in a three quarter will jut stop it dead, this may give the feel folk are on about but I'm just guessing. Probably a good playing cue is a good playing cue, but are the tapers different ? I know they say a centre jointed tends to be stiffer, so it's reasonable to think a three quarter would be stiffer than a one piece, unless they are shaped differently.

[tetricky]

I concur with Vmax4steve and Ramon's views. There is no guarantee that your one piece cue is actually a one piece ash from ferrule to butt end. Furthermore, with the addition of weight and butt end drilling to fit extensions, it is already not a full piece ash that can let you 'feel' the shot.
With more and more pros and amateurs alike using 3/4 cues, it shouldn't be so much of a big difference between both makes of cues.

Just my thoughts and reasoning.

So that de-facto makes it worse than a cue built the same, but cut into two parts with an additional joint fitted?

I can absolutely understand that for many people a split cue makes no difference. Is it so hard to understand that for some people a one piece is preferable? Turn the question around. Ignoring transport considerations, what playing benefit does a cue gain from being cut in two and having a brass joint fitted?

[billabong]

So that de-facto makes it worse than a cue built the same, but cut into two parts with an additional joint fitted?

I can absolutely understand that for many people a split cue makes no difference. Is it so hard to understand that for some people a one piece is preferable? Turn the question around. Ignoring transport considerations, what playing benefit does a cue gain from being cut in two and having a brass joint fitted?

I would say it doesn't need to benefit at all ( transportation reasons aside ). As long as it doesn't make it worse.

If a player finds a 1 piece cue feels great, then finds a 3/4 cue that feels just as good, where's the harm ?

I suspect a blind test ( placebo effect neutral ) of 50 cues with 50 players of varying abilities, trying them all,

would still show some preferring the 3/4, and some preferring the one piece.

Just find one that you like without pre-conceptions ( difficult to do with a totally open mind ).

[winphenom]

Definitely everyone has their own liking and preference for whatever kind of cue they like. But its also very true that majority of people covet a full piece cue.
The points raised here are facts and the makes of old cues are truly one full piece as there are not much extra weights added and joints drilled at butt end. Its all density of wood and around 16 to 17 ozs.
Preference is own individual taste. Just that more 3/4s are being used by pros and if the difference is great, i am sure they won't choose easy transportability over good playability which affects their game.

[jrc750]

...Just that more 3/4s are being used by pros and if the difference is great, i am sure they won't choose easy transportability over good playability which affects their game.

I thought it was the other way around ? ie more pros moving back to one piece cues ??

[markz]

So that de-facto makes it worse than a cue built the same, but cut into two parts with an additional joint fitted?

I can absolutely understand that for many people a split cue makes no difference. Is it so hard to understand that for some people a one piece is preferable? Turn the question around. Ignoring transport considerations, what playing benefit does a cue gain from being cut in two and having a brass joint fitted?

There is no benefit to splitting a cue and adding a joint but there is no big negative either. I've used both and played fine. Like most things in snooker it's more mental, if it helps you thinking there is some magical feel from a one piece you will always think like that. I'm sure Neil Robertson could have got his 100 centuries in a season using a one piece but the fact is he uses a 3/4 cue and it doesn't hinder him.

[winphenom]

Well if you see now, how many pros are using full piece cues through the times till now? Whenever i watch them, i normally see 3/4 cues bar murphy, higgins and ronnie who have been using full piece all these years.

[winphenom]

Couldn't agree with you more Markz. Its just preference and mentality.

[golferson123]

Definitely everyone has their own liking and preference for whatever kind of cue they like. But its also very true that majority of people covet a full piece cue.
The points raised here are facts and the makes of old cues are truly one full piece as there are not much extra weights added and joints drilled at butt end. Its all density of wood and around 16 to 17 ozs.
Preference is own individual taste. Just that more 3/4s are being used by pros and if the difference is great, i am sure they won't choose easy transportability over good playability which affects their game.

not fully true as some old cues were in fact made this way

[barrywhite]

not fully true as some old cues were in fact made this way

Some cheap cues maybe. But at the end of the day, purely for beauty reasons (in addition to more feedback and feel), the true one-piece rules. You wouldn't get a Ferrari, cut some holes and add two doors would you? So why add a joint to a great cue? It makes no sense to do this, there is no advantage other than laziness.

[golferson123]

Some cheap cues maybe. But at the end of the day, purely for beauty reasons (in addition to more feedback and feel), the true one-piece rules. You wouldn't get a Ferrari, cut some holes and add two doors would you? So why add a joint to a great cue? It makes no sense to do this, there is no advantage other than laziness.

wrong again, not cheap cues at all! b&w used this method as did others and its not a joint its wood to wood, there is no difference at all

[itsnoteasy]

Some cheap cues maybe. But at the end of the day, purely for beauty reasons (in addition to more feedback and feel), the true one-piece rules. You wouldn't get a Ferrari, cut some holes and add two doors would you? So why add a joint to a great cue? It makes no sense to do this, there is no advantage other than laziness.

If there is one thing top end Thai cues can never be classed as and that's cheap cues.