Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shaun Murphy and cutting his cue

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shaun Murphy and cutting his cue

    I was watching the tele box the other week, Shaun Murphy was interviewed. He stated he chopped a full inch off his cue. This was so he would get reaction from his cue and the correct amount of throw. This has totally confused me. I thought the throw, side reaction mainly came from the last few inches of the cue, so surely he should get more reaction with a longer cue. He is quite tall too, so thought he'd need a better length!

    I have found when I have used shorter cues, i get less out of them. Mine are mainly 58 to 58.5 I've used 57 but way too short for me.Is this all in my silly head, or is there truth in the matter.


    Can the members of this fine forum assist me with the answer.
    Always a pleasure

  • #2
    This has been discussed previously
    http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...ighlight=shaun

    It was half an inch, here is the text on his blog (http://www.shaunmurphy.net/news/busy...-off-the-baize)
    "For those of you wondering, I've had it shortened to 57.5 inches from 58. This has subsequently made the tip 9mm, up from 8.7. Doesn't sound much but snooker as we know is a game of fractions. I’m hoping these fractions will give me the extra cue ball deflection or "throw" that I'm looking for."

    What gets me is the last bit "...I'm looking for" so he is after "more" deflection? I thought most players are after less deflection?
    Or maybe this new cue has less deflection than the old cue he played with for many year which broke a few years ago and this reduction is to get the same reaction he was used to?
    Up the TSF!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DeanH View Post
      This has been discussed previously
      http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...ighlight=shaun

      It was half an inch, here is the text on his blog (http://www.shaunmurphy.net/news/busy...-off-the-baize)
      "For those of you wondering, I've had it shortened to 57.5 inches from 58. This has subsequently made the tip 9mm, up from 8.7. Doesn't sound much but snooker as we know is a game of fractions. I’m hoping these fractions will give me the extra cue ball deflection or "throw" that I'm looking for."

      What gets me is the last bit "...I'm looking for" so he is after "more" deflection? I thought most players are after less deflection?
      Or maybe this new cue has less deflection than the old cue he played with for many year which broke a few years ago and this reduction is to get the same reaction he was used to?
      I think he typed that more deflection bit wrong. In an interview he said he was over compensating with the new cue, which would point to less deflection I think.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DeanH View Post
        This has been discussed previously
        http://www.thesnookerforum.co.uk/boa...ighlight=shaun

        It was half an inch, here is the text on his blog (http://www.shaunmurphy.net/news/busy...-off-the-baize)
        "For those of you wondering, I've had it shortened to 57.5 inches from 58. This has subsequently made the tip 9mm, up from 8.7. Doesn't sound much but snooker as we know is a game of fractions. I’m hoping these fractions will give me the extra cue ball deflection or "throw" that I'm looking for."

        What gets me is the last bit "...I'm looking for" so he is after "more" deflection? I thought most players are after less deflection?
        Or maybe this new cue has less deflection than the old cue he played with for many year which broke a few years ago and this reduction is to get the same reaction he was used to?
        Originally posted by jonny66 View Post
        I think he typed that more deflection bit wrong. In an interview he said he was over compensating with the new cue, which would point to less deflection I think.
        You want to see an unbelievable video to explain this? First time I saw this, my jaw dropped, I never had considered this type of action before. Basically (as this video will show), the lighter weight the end of the cue stick, the less the cue ball will deflect off line and conversely, the heavier the end of the cue stick, the more the cue ball will deflect, but the location of the weight/mass is absolutely critical. You need to know that this deflection off its line of aim is what the Americans pool players call "squirt" because he says that many times in the video. So my assumption is that Shaun old cue was a little heavier at the tip end than his current (either due to slightly thicker diameter or possibly same diameter but denser wood or perhaps a different weight in the ferrule I suppose). The point is that I think he wants the current cue to mimic the old so he wants it to deflect just a touch more so he makes the tip more massive by cutting it down shorter (now its a bigger diameter). He could have accomplished the same goal by using some maths to figure the mass he was looking for then, say, drill a small hole in the center under the tip and filling it with lead or some such. Or he could have extended the brass ferrule to make it a little heavier. Point is you can use ANYTHING to change the mass of the end of the cue stick as you will see but the exact location of that mass is critical. I am going to jump you right to the point of the video that is unbelievable and you have to watch from the 6:00 mark to the 7:30 mark at least but the whole video is eye opening.

        https://youtu.be/mXJ7bDafTms?t=361

        Comment


        • #5
          iT'S NOT A NEW CUE, HE JUST HAD A HALF INCH CHOPPED OFF THE TIP END. Sorry for the caps.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jonny66 View Post
            iT'S NOT A NEW CUE, HE JUST HAD A HALF INCH CHOPPED OFF THE TIP END. Sorry for the caps.
            It is his "new" cue he has had from 2013, after the cue he had since his 15th birthday broke
            Up the TSF!

            Comment


            • #7
              Right, I meant after he had his cue shortened he said he was over compensating for side in an interview and that the cue ball was going in a much straighter line, which suggests he's getting less throw with the shortened cue.

              Comment


              • #8
                Disagree with you here Jonny. The way I interpret: he has had the "old" cue up until 2013. He had a feel for that cue and liked it the way it was and he would properly compensate for the throw effect (that the Americans call "squirt", that is, if I have my translations correct between the British and American...I think the terms are synonymous but I am open to correction). This became a natural compensation for him with the "old" cue. He got his "new" cue in 2013 but it just never felt right to him because of the natural compensation he used to make....i.e., the "new" cue has less throw (less mass at tip), cue ball travels in a straighter line when he uses side so his natural compensation is too much so he is missing shots on the thick side that he used to make with the "old" cue. So he actually wants the "new" cue to deflect the cue ball a little more (wants more "throw" "squirt") so that his natural compensation works again. He wants to change the equipment, not re-learn his stroke. Bear in mind, this is just a tiny, tiny, tiny compensation we are talking about for the tiny amount of change in the mass at the tip of the cue. But either: a) he really is that good that he will be able to tell a difference, or b) it's a psychological thing and when he starts potting balls again he will have the attitude that the reason is because of the change he's made. Either way, if it works, it doesn't matter.

                I do not profess to be really knowledgeable about this point but that is just my interpretation of it.

                Edit: I said I disagree with you, but actually, I agree with most of your post: Yes, he was over-compensating for side when he got the new cue in 2013 (because he was used to the "old" cue), yes, the cue ball was going in a straighter line before shortening (so that he was over-compensating as if he was still using the "old" cue), but NO, to me this suggests that he is getting more throw, more squirt by shortening the "new" cue in this way but that is what he wants so that his old method of compensation works.

                Oh, and I just noticed that this exactly agrees with what Dean had suggested..."....maybe this new cue has less deflection than the old cue he played with for many year which broke a few years ago and this reduction is to get the same reaction he was used to?"
                Last edited by acesinc; 3rd March 2017, 08:09 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Shaun said himself that after the shortening the cue ball went straighter, which is less deflection. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with Shaun Murphy, and you have every right to do so

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nevermind, just me and my bad memory

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This reminds me of a story I read somewhere, sometime about I think Eddie Van Halen. I could get details wrong but you will see the parallels. So a guitar maker was supposed to make him a new guitar and Eddie wanted it out of some kind of exotic wood because the tone of that wood sounded smoother or some such. Well, this wood was so exotic, that the maker could not find it anywhere and substituted some similar wood figuring how would he know the difference? It was an electric guitar (not a soundboard like an acoustic) and the guitar body was painted anyway so you couldn't see the grain. Guitar maker just figured, "Geniuses and their quirks..." Needless to say, as soon as he strummed the guitar, Eddie said, "What the hell did you make this out of?!"

                      Was never a Van Halen fan myself but I do think that talent in any form should be respected. They may be crazy but they know something that we don't know.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X