Ferrules and Throw and Spin

[Master Blaster]

I hardly think it's enough of a difference to make me care !

Fair enough mate. So you didn't order an MW with black spin then? I thought Trump switched to a Parris cue? I assumed it was an ultimate. What did John make him then?

[jrc750]

I hardly think it's enough of a difference to make me care !

[jrc750]

So you're saying Trump would pot the ball exactly the same with a very stiff Ultimate compared to his whippy ultimate? And he'd screw the same length, really?

Trevor White, please come in! I'd be interested to hear what Trevor would say about this.

Trump doesn't play with an Ultimate

[Master Blaster]

No I haven't moved topics, if anyone has used a snooker cue with a plastic/fibre ferrule, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on throw and spin.

I'd like TW to comment because he doesn't have a commercial interest! He makes cues, not ferrules. But he does understand cues, ferrules and tips I hear. But anyone with experience of playing with fibre/plastic would be interesting. Mythman?

[Leo]

thought we were talking about deflection, not defective cues - why are you now talking about whippy cues, these should be avoided anyway

it's like the man claiming pixies and dragons must exist because you can't prove they don't - in other words, it's bollocks

why do you want Trevor White to comment, does he know more than Terry Griffiths or does he just believe in something different or have a commercial interest in telling you something different?

brass ferrule with elk or fibre with laminated hard, ash, maple or carbon, it will do the same if you hit it the same

We are master blaster has moved topics

[sberry]

thought we were talking about deflection, not defective cues - why are you now talking about whippy cues, these should be avoided anyway

it's like the man claiming pixies and dragons must exist because you can't prove they don't - in other words, it's bollocks

why do you want Trevor White to comment, does he know more than Terry Griffiths or does he just believe in something different or have a commercial interest in telling you something different?

brass ferrule with elk or fibre with laminated hard, ash, maple or carbon, it will do the same if you hit it the same

[Master Blaster]

Its all a load of ****e, if you hit the ball in the right place it's going to go in wether you're using a tin opener or a medium flex cue. Way to many people getting caught in the atheistics of cues and wonder why they can't put a decent break together.

So you're saying Trump would pot the ball exactly the same with a very stiff Ultimate compared to his whippy ultimate? And he'd screw the same length, really?

Trevor White, please come in! I'd be interested to hear what Trevor would say about this.

[Leo]

No, no, no - it's just in your mind and in their mind, that is all - same as religion - if you believe it, it is true and unprovable

You are talking microscopic differences anyway for heavens sake

Plenty of snooker playing robots seen before, should be easy for MW or anyone to set up a test without human interaction to prove it but there is a reason you won't see that done

Doesn't matter whether something exists or not, if you think it does, for you it does exist

and don't start on the maple vs ash difference either

Its all a load of ****e, if you hit the ball in the right place it's going to go in wether you're using a tin opener or a medium flex cue. Way to many people getting caught in the atheistics of cues and wonder why they can't put a decent break together.

[Master Blaster]

So you haven't played snooker with a fibre/plastic ferrule then? I understand why you would want to debunk certain lines held by cue makers etc, and I agree, there's no need to spend more money on toys that don't do anything different. But the feel of the hit without a ferrule on a snooker cue is very very different to brass, if you've tried it?

[sberry]

No, no, no - it's just in your mind and in their mind, that is all - same as religion - if you believe it, it is true and unprovable

You are talking microscopic differences anyway for heavens sake

Plenty of snooker playing robots seen before, should be easy for MW or anyone to set up a test without human interaction to prove it but there is a reason you won't see that done

Doesn't matter whether something exists or not, if you think it does, for you it does exist

and don't start on the maple vs ash difference either

[Master Blaster]

So has anyone played with a plastic/fibre ferrule on a snooker cue then? Terry? How did it compare with respect to throw and spin v. a brass/SS?

* I'm not surprised sberry didn't find any diff between brass and SS, they are metals of similar density.

I've tried playing without a ferrule and the hit and throw are very, very different. There is a loss of spin and less throw compared to brass. I also noticed less throw when I used to play 9-ball with a pool cue with a plastic ferrule, but not as much as a snooker cue without a ferrule. But it's difficult to gain a meaningful insight when thinking about a pool cue with plastic ferrule hitting big pool balls compared to a snooker cue with brass ferrule hitting lighter and smaller balls. An interesting aside is why do American pool cue makers (and some of these cues cost even more than snooker cues) persist with plastic when metal ferrules that are tougher/damage less could be applied instead?

If the material of the ferrule doesn't matter then how come MW's customers attest to less throw and more spin, with a couple of exceptions? If tips change the characteristic of the hit then why wouldn't shaft wood and ferrules? We all know that a maple hit is very different to a hit with an ash cue. The maple has close grain and different mechanical properties, and so do the ferrules also behave differently, i.e. metal v. plastic?

[sberry]

like a robot is not a robot, anything with human interaction or input can be discounted for consistency purposes

but it's all irrelevant really, even though it's just as mythical as religion hopefully it will never cause the problems religion has.... we don't need nicknames like jihadi john in snooker

[mythman69]

Yes and no - some pros believe rubbish, it doesn't stop them being damn good players. Bit like religion and ufos, you can't prove it so you can talk about it forever and some people will believe you, who really cares, if it makes you happy that's all that matters.

Now, if someone was to set up a simple experiment with a robot and could produce meaningful results that would be different... will be plenty of students at uni loving to do that, think of the sales boost for someone who could provide the super cue or ferrule that could produce the different results....

Some of the top players do have a cue action like a robot. I am sure they have tried some of these simple experiments and decided for themselves that there is no difference or a certain product works better. The big problem is that many of these players also get paid to say a certain product is the best and the rest of us can't tell if it really is or a case of 'cash for comment'. So we try ourselves and see what works best for us even if it is only in our heads. I am sure I play better with my favourite cue than a rack cue. Still, my cue action is not robotic. I wish it was.

[Terry Davidson]

It is a known fact that every cue will deflect the cueball to a different degree when using side (I call this 'throw'). Then logically some cues DO throw less than others. So the question becomes why will one cue throw less than another one? I think it's related to the shaft flex and the end weight of the cue plus perhaps the hardness of the tip.

However, if a player uses a cue for awhile his brain will get used to the amount of aim-off he needs to pot a ball while using side and he will play well with that cue eventually. My own thoughts are if an amateur player hits the cueball with UNINTENTIONAL side and the amount of this will vary with the power and be worse on higher power shots then wouldn't it be to that player's advantage to try and get a cue which causes less throw? Pros, for the most part at least, usually have a pretty consistent technique and then it just becomes getting used to the throw of that particular cue and if they use that cue for awhile they will unconsciously adjust for the correct aim-off.

I think a player with a less than pure stroke would play better with a cue of medium flex and reduced end weight because this has been proven in a University of Ohio study (using pool balls but not a robot) to deflect the cueball less. Doesn't it stand to reason if the shaft is not too stiff that at the strike the shaft will take some of that off-centre force as compared to a very stiff cue which would have less or no give? Even though this happens in a split second there will still be some off-centre force imparted on BOTH the cueball and the shaft.

Remember, as long as a player has a consistent technique he can get used to any cue, even a 2" x 4" or a broom handle, if he uses it enough and gets his brain trained to automatically determine the aim-off when using side.

[sberry]

Yes and no - some pros believe rubbish, it doesn't stop them being damn good players. Bit like religion and ufos, you can't prove it so you can talk about it forever and some people will believe you, who really cares, if it makes you happy that's all that matters.

Now, if someone was to set up a simple experiment with a robot and could produce meaningful results that would be different... will be plenty of students at uni loving to do that, think of the sales boost for someone who could provide the super cue or ferrule that could produce the different results....