Cue length - curious Ray Reardon fact

[SnookerfromtheThatcherEra]

I've put this in the "coaching forum" rather than "Snooker history" one, because I'm more interested in correct cue lengths and current cue lengths...

But I was reading Ray Reardon's 1976 book "Classic Snooker", and on page 20 he writes:

I recommend a grained ash cue of between 16 and 17.5 ounces....I play with a 10 millimetre tip and my cue measures 4 feet 8 inches [ie 56 inches]

Now, my question is this. Reardon was 6 foot tall, if not a shade over. Isn't that, by modern day standards:
1. A very short cue for someone his height?
2. A fairly light cue by today's norms?
3. A fairly big tip, by today's norms?

Remember, Reardon was at his peak in the 1960s and 1970s, but I guess he would have started playing in the 1940s and 1950s, and that is when he would have 'chosen' his favourite sort and size of cue.

Many thanks for any input from anyone interested - I realise this is all a bit esoteric, but at 5'8" myself, I have just (successfully, thank god!) had my cue shortened from 58" to 57" - so am a bit surprised a six-footer would play with a 56"? (for comparison, think I read that Neil Robertson and Kyron Wilson both play with 59" cues?)

[DeanH]

Yep, I saw this many years ago (he mentions his cue length in his series of coaching programmes) and it was discussed on TSF back then. My thoughts were that Ray got used to the old billiards way of playing, as you say in the late 40s - 50s, where the tendency was not to have long "feathering" and therefore no need for a longer cue,?
Or maybe it was just the first cue he picked up and stuck with it for all those years

[SnookerfromtheThatcherEra]

Ah, apologies if it has already been brought up, I did do a little search but didn't find anything.

I think you're right - but am I right in thinking that is a SHORT, FAT, LIGHT cue for a six-footer, by today's standards?

Thanks!

[DeanH]

Ah, apologies if it has already been brought up, I did do a little search but didn't find anything.

I think you're right - but am I right in thinking that is a SHORT, FAT, LIGHT cue for a six-footer, by today's standards?

Thanks!

I did say it was years ago
and of course you are correct that Ray's cue is not what is considered "standard" by today's standards - or should we say by the manufacturers' standard?
Now there is the question... is the "standard" specs dictated by the buyer or the manufacturers?
Chicken/egg
Considering most cues are bought off the rack and not custom made, the manufacturers' sizes dictates,?
Are coaches to blame? Are they pushing certain specs to fit with the manufacturers' dictates?
Are the coaches paid by the manufacturers?



sorry about that, went a bit off track there!?

[SnookerfromtheThatcherEra]

Haha! I don't know the answer to any of those, but I do know that when I finally upgraded from my cheapo composite-wood 29 euro "beginners" cue, to a really nice ash pretty expensive decent cue, I didn't initially realise I had inadvertently gone from 57" to 58" too - but after six months of playing with it, I realised I just couldn't get used to that extra inch (insert pun here), so had to take the risk of having it shortened.

Cut a long story short, as well as along cue, short, am MUCH happier, and even slightly better player, with 57". Was having to grip the cue shaft too high up with the 58" to compensate and keep the bridge length/feathering the same, and was not a happy experience.

[Cue crafty]

I think the cue length could be due also to Rays unique style of play, his elbow jutted outwards and he played with the cue very much beneath himself. He did hold the cue at the extreme end on a number of shots.

[Starsky]

Interesting with the weight of cues and thinner tips.
In the early/mid 80’s when players played with old billiard cues( myself included) and they were all around the weight Reardon recommends .
I remember a shift over to heavier cues with thinner tips when White became popular and players started to copy his attacking style of play and cue spec( myself included ).
Those that had the money also purchased the first three quarter length cues from Hunt & O’Byrne.

In my mind the set up on pro tables doesn’t warrant pro’s using these heavier cues anymore as the tables are so reactive . Of course most club tables are still as slow as they were back in the day .

[Nifty50]

The whole game has moved on since the Reardon days. Different cloths, balls etc. I think the Reardon era was just following on from the billiards era of pushing 3 balls around. With the boom in snooker cues have had to be adapted to suit. Heavier cues and smaller tips are the result.
Didn’t Reardon have a dodgy shoulder as a result of a pit accident and cue’d a bit funny?

[SnookerfromtheThatcherEra]

Yes, indeed, Nifty50! He says in the book he went down the pits at the age of 16 or thereabouts, and was trapped for several hours by a shaft collapsing, assumed he was going to die, and eventually was dug out, but with an injured arm.

I've often thought that experience might be one of the reasons he was so relaxed and unruffled around the table - once you've had a near-death experience at that age, how "stressful", really, is playing the game you love, even under the TV cameras in front of a thousand people? Puts it all in perspective...

And thanks, Starsky. I think White uses a heavy, 59" cue, I read on here somewhere, even though he's not that tall? (never seen him in the flesh, but doesn't seem like he's six foot?)

[Starsky]

Having a longer cue than the norm for your height is much less of an issue than having it too short . I guess it’s just what White got used to playing with from an early age.

The reason why I believe so many players from snooker changed over from the old billiard cues was that modern cues aren’t generally as whippy as the old billiard cues and more suited to playing snooker where more power shots are needed .
The weight of decent modern cues are made from the density of the wood etc and not from adding weight to butt like they used to.

[PaceAce]

It is interesting how much snooker cue standards and desired specifications have changed and evolved over the years mainly due to the modern tables, cloths and balls and influence of pro players and also personal experiences.

[itsnoteasy]

I wouldn't say 17.5 ounces is overly light, I've had a cue at that weight and it was fine. Never played with one at the lower end 16 ounces but I would love to try.

[vmax]

Having a longer cue than the norm for your height is much less of an issue than having it too short . I guess it’s just what White got used to playing with from an early age.

The reason why I believe so many players from snooker changed over from the old billiard cues was that modern cues aren’t generally as whippy as the old billiard cues and more suited to playing snooker where more power shots are needed .
The weight of decent modern cues are made from the density of the wood etc and not from adding weight to butt like they used to.

After ten years of making cues, in my experience a bare one piece ash/maple shaft without any hardwood splices weighs about 14 oz's, add the hardwood splices and it comes up to about 16 oz's. The modern 3/4 cue usually has a solid hardwood butt that could take it north of 18 oz's which includes an ounce for the metal joint, but for a true one piece weight has to be added to get it to 18 oz's or over.
Weight doesn't matter as much as balance, a light cue poorly balanced can feel heavier in the hand than a heavy cue balanced correctly. My own cue is 61 inches long and 20 oz's but doesn't feel heavy as it's perfectly balanced, I'm a six foot two skinny git with long arms and need to have my bridge arm straight so longer than standard suits me.

BTW I read somewhere that Reardon's cue suffered tip end damage and had to be cut down and have a new ferrule fitted so it was probably somewhere around 57/58 inches originally.

[SnookerfromtheThatcherEra]

Thanks, everyone. That's why I joined TSF this week really -ie I've tried talking about Ray Reardon's cue length to friends and family - and they're just NOT interested! :>)

[DeanH]

... but doesn't feel heavy as it's perfectly balanced,

Can I ask what determines the "perfect balance"?
Is it a personal thing to the player, or a characteristic of the cue?