Tweet
I am going to try one of these cues next week, I think in principle and theory i can see the benefits. Its not supposed to make a vastly noticeable difference to the player, more to subtly encourage the player to stay in a complete vertical line over each shot, i think we are all guilty of having small amounts of movement in our cue action as the stance and principal of cueing is alien and un-natural to the human body. But i am keen to try it, so hopefully the proof of the pudding will be in the cueing, no, thats not the saying is it!!
-
-
Gimmick?!
How about this for shaking things up...
I had my first lesson this week with Neil Johnson, the guy that invented the Gravity Cue. While I was waiting for my lesson at the club he now teaches at, a young lad called Clayton (some of you may be fortunate enough to know him or unfortunate enough to have played him) came over and asked did I want to play a couple of frames with him as he was also waiting for a lesson with Neil and wanted to warm up beforehand.
This kid is just 14 years of age.
He has only played snooker for 2 years.
He made a f***ing 78 break off his first shot!!!
I was mortified. Turns out his highest break is 140 and he has won every major tournament going in the Northwest in his age group for the last 12 months!
He was taught by Neil from day one and plays with a Gravity cue. When he practices he plays with the 360 cue that Neil also invented. There must be something good about these cues, surely?!? I fail to believe that having played for 2 years and never making more than a 25 break that this kid can be THAT much of a quick learner?
And not once during the entire lesson did Neil try to sell me one of his cues or try to "convert" me into a Gravity cue believer - in fact he made me use my own cue the entire time! He is not at all a gimmick-pusher like this thread is starting to make him seem. The guy is just completely genuine and a very good teacher - very passionate about what he does and such a nice bloke!
After just one lesson I was playing a million times better than when I started so I rebooked for the same time next week and look forward to seeing how much I can improve next time!
Just thought he needed a bit of defending as you all seem to be against his idea and I have seen first-hand the results of his work! :snooker:Is this a question...? Discuss.Comment
-
Clayton has had coaching from the start, he is a very talented kid so I wouldn't put his entire form down to the gravity cue. I'm sure he would be just as good with any cue had he received the same level of coaching.
I saw him play Steve Davis at an exhibition in Chester in December and he is indeed a very talented kid. Neil showed Davis the gravity cue and 360 trainer after the exhibition. Not sure what Davis thought of it though.
Last edited by RGCirencester; 30 January 2010, 12:23 AM.sigpic A Truly Beakerific Long Pot Sir!Comment
-
I was not trying to accuse the inventor of anything. I was curious and wanted to find out more.Originally Posted by samueldavidrice View Post
From the web site it only basically showed that he is putting some weight to the bottom of the cue and that alone just cannot convince me that it is a break through technology. May be there is something he is not saying?
From reading your post I think it is fair to say that you have witnessed first hand the talent of a 14 years old young man, and a very good coach. I am not sure you have witnessed anything first hand about the performance of the cue, as you did not even try it.
Actually it is possible to make 70+ after playing for 2 years. To make a 140 is something else, but to make 70+ and 80+ is not really something that difficult to achieve for someone who has been playing for 2 years, especially if he has a good coach and practices a lot..Comment
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRYrBnXG2dkOriginally Posted by poolqjunkie View Postsigpic A Truly Beakerific Long Pot Sir!Comment
-
I agree that coaching is a big help but I just couldn't imagine getting that good at anything in just two years lol. Surely consistent 80-breaks after just two years with an hour lesson per week can't be THAT easy or every man and his dog would be doing it!? I have played guitar for fifteen years and I was taught for the first four and I practised for hours every day - I honestly don't think I have ever been as good at guitar as this kid is at snooker! I hope I might make an 80 break within two years but I can't see it happening really!
You're correct I didn't play with the cue as it belonged to Clayton, but I did have a good look at it, held it and and had a mess with it before my lesson and I have to say it didn't seem all that light to me - it seemed VERY heavy in fact and the bias is unbelievably noticeable. It IS made by Peradon though - it says so on the badge! Clayton said it is about 19.5 - 20oz in weight and Neil agreed they are generally about an ounce or so heavier than a standard cue in order to exaggerate the bias. I don't think there is anything he is not telling us - it seemed quite straightforward - just a long, heavy strip of metal set into the bottom of the cue that runs from the butt end to roughly between a third and half the way up the cue. I'm not sure how it feels to play with but I could definately feel the downward force it produces when held in the hand whilst cueing! It's quite strange - to hold it at the tip end it feels a bit heavier than a normally weighted cue but when you hold the butt or try to roll or push it sideways on the table it truly feels about twice or three times heavier than a normal cue! Maybe it's not a miracle of modern science but if you are taught well and you cue well, perhaps it acts as a constant reminder of correct cueing action and offers resistive force when this is not adhered to?:snooker:Is this a question...? Discuss.Comment
-
About the comment of making 80+ breaks. I am no pro by any standards but I had a bunch of 40+ about 4 months after I started taking some lessons and practiced a lot on my own. About 6 months later I had a 60+ and before the end of the year I had a 80+. A few months afte that I had my first century in practice. I cannot do them all the time, and I am just a very average player. I would imagine Clayton is much more consistent and is able to make high breaks over 70s on a regular basis.Originally Posted by samueldavidrice View Post
It is just a lot of hardwork. If you cannot make more than 50 once even in practice after 2 years, you are having some serious flaws with your mechanic, do not know how to aim, and/or you just did not put in enough time to practice, IMO.
Having said that, to have a highest break of 140 after playing for only 2 years is something else. But I would attribute lots of it to hardwork, coaching, and talent.
Having lesson once a week is very frequent in my opinion. You need time to digest and integrate what you have learned into your game before you should move on to the next lesson. A lot of it is really just hard work and lots of practice.
I am sure you would agree that Clayton did not get where he is because of a metal strip inserted on the bottom of his cue. Using your own word, if it is that simple then everyone and their dogs would be doing it.
I also want to re-state my point of view of gravity cues. I would not have started this thread if I was not interested in this product. After watching the youtube video, I am actually very interested in the 360 cue. I have not been against the idea at all.
However, after I read your post, I could not help but disagree with what you were trying to say (not what is said on the Gravity site or what Neil siad in the video). You seemed to be trying to say that we were knocking the cue and you have first hand experience and "proof" to show us that this is a good product. Nevertheless, all I have read from you so far only showed me these facts: firstly, Clayton is a good player; secondly, you feel that Neil is a good coach, and lastly, Clayton uses a gravity cue. It does not prove in any manner that Gravity cue is better than a conventional cue, or in your own words, that this is not a gimmick.
You seem to believe that there must be something special to making Clayton as good as he is in 2 years; moreover, you seem to be trying to suggest that Gravity cue has something to do with this special achievement. However, I cannot see the logic which connects the above mentioned two points you made. How did you come to the conclusion that Gravity has something to do with Clayton playing at the level he is playing at? Is it just because you feel that you cannot reach that level in two years so it has to be cue that seperates you and him as he is using a Gravity but you are not?Last edited by poolqjunkie; 30 January 2010, 10:20 PM.Comment
-
He did 70+ breaks in competition after 2 years? or in open-table, line-up or other routines?Comment
-
I think he can make 70+ break in match quite consistently.Originally Posted by mihnea View PostComment
-
I had my first 70 after less than two years and we had no coaching in those days. We used to do a hard days work at least 8hours a day beforehand. I did not start playing until around 15 years of age. Only problem was, we used to play more golf on the snooker table than snooker.
:snooker:Comment
-
yes you can. of course it depends how much you practice during those 2 years and whether you are getting the basic training and foundation necessary to make 50+ breaks. i made my first century after playing for 3 years, although i started late, when i was 17.Comment
-
I think I might not have got my point across with my last thread, I have been talking with Neil(johnson) over the last few weeks and am having a gravity cue made. I think Neils work is excellent, your example about carlton is just one testimony to the technology thet Neil has developed. I think the gravity cue and 360 are the biggest technolgical advance in cue sports since cue sports began, and people should stop knocking it until they have tried it. Neil has had pros such as steve davis under the microscope and even he has found a couple of flaws in his cue action, the gravity cue is designed to encourage the player to play with the best possible cue action and that cant be a bad thing. I will have my gravity cue within the next couple of weeks so will let you know how it works for me.Comment
-
Would you like to show us some scientific evidence to support your claims?
Unless you can definitively prove your points via scientific research which by the way is not available from the company that makes gravity cues, then your suggestions are only as valid as the previous posters.
Experienced cuemakers have debunked the gravity cue theory in previous postings - thats expert opinion that is logical and backed by years of experience and knowledge.Comment
-
Obviously i personally have no scientic evidence, but it is out there, and the only real evidence is if it works for the individual. Have you tried one?Originally Posted by arbitrage View Post
I do appreciate your point, however, there can be no harm in the technology that he has developed. Many players do play at the highest level with an unorthodox cue action, but surely, if you can develop a better cue action, especially from an early age using the gravity cue and 360 then you can focus more on the tactical and positional side of the game.
If you try it and dont think its any good then stick to what you know, but if it helps people improve their game(which there is evidence that it has) then its a good thing, why knock it so hard?Comment
Comment