PDA

View Full Version : Sorry, revisit cue weight

bsmutz
01-03-2008, 12:34 PM
I read most of the posts under the recent thread on cue weight, but still have a question that I hope someone can provide definitive information about. Let's say that you are just an average player with average build and can't begin to come close to getting the stick speed that someone like Mike Massey can. Your break speed is in the 14-19 MPH range. For normal play, (some tournaments, some league) just trying to move the cue ball around to get good position for the next shot, what is the trade off between speed and mass?
It seems logical to assume that for a given speed and the same offset from center, that a larger mass (heavier cue) would impart more spin. Is that correct? Does more mass make up for less power? Thanks for your input.

Jal
01-03-2008, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>...
It seems logical to assume that for a given speed and the same offset from center, that a larger mass (heavier cue) would impart more spin. Is that correct? <hr /></blockquote>Yes, a 100 lb cue moving at 5 mph will create more spin (and speed) than an 18 oz cue. But that is misleading in that it's harder to get a heavier cue up to speed. Instead of comparing cues of different weights at the same speed, it's more appropriate to compare them with a given amount of force applied to and by a player's arm.

I think maybe you're looking for a simple answer to a question that does not have one. In order to determine the best weight for a particular player, you would have to know something about the player's arm that isn't easy to come by. And even if you knew that, you could only determine the best weight at some particular tip offset. But the good news is that it doesn't make all that much difference.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr>Does more mass make up for less power? Thanks for your input. <hr /></blockquote>Do you you mean energy delivered to the cueball? There is an optimal weight for each individual player at each particular offset. More or less weight than this will result in less cueball energy. The weight that is best at centerball for a given player, will not be the best at any other offset for that player.

Jim

bsmutz
01-03-2008, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the reply, Jim. I guess what I'm asking is that for someone who isn't a very powerful player, would it be easier for them to move the cue ball around with a 1-2 ounce heavier cue as a general rule than it would be with a lighter cue? I'm guessing it wouldn't matter on most shots and that the real difference (if there is one) would only manifest itself on extreme draw and follow shots. So, with a good stroke, trying to draw the cue ball 4-5 feet back from an object ball that is 4-5 feet away from the cue ball, would it be better to have a heavier cue or not? It doesn't sound like you think it would make any difference.

1Time
01-03-2008, 02:34 PM
I've never taken much interest in the definitive answers on this subject that have been posted here in the past because I primarily play 9-ball and don't consider the primary objective of my 9-ball break to be the application of maximum force. For me it's to control the cue ball and pocket balls on the break, which is more a function of accuracy and control than it is the application of maximum force.

However, the application of maximum force is much more important with one of my 8-ball breaks where I basically smash the rack about as hard as I can. And although my 19.5 oz cue does this just fine, I've gotten my best results with this break with a heavier cue, something in the 21 to 22 oz range. And so I suspect that someone with my approximate abilities would also find a heavier cue to be the weapon of choice. Of course I'm sure others could easily find that a lighter or heavier cue could work best for them. Isn't there some kind of formula or equation that defines force and has something to do with mass and speed?

Eric.
01-03-2008, 02:45 PM
I've nvr done "scientific experiments" to come to a conclusion, but I have screwed around with what you said.

The best I could come up with is that, yes, a heavier cue does help somewhat. Center axis hits moved easier. Unfortunately, there seems to be a point where the added weight offers little return (off center hits). My guess is that after a certain point, the added weight, plus the off center hit, causes much more CB deflection/squirt. While it was easier to move the CB, the diminished accuracy wasn't worth it.

*edit- any inadvertant off center hits were magnified too

-I used various weights taped to the middle of a cheap cue to make the cue heavier.

Eric

1Time
01-03-2008, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> I guess what I'm asking is that for someone who isn't a very powerful player, would it be easier for them to move the cue ball around with a 1-2 ounce heavier cue as a general rule than it would be with a lighter cue? I'm guessing it wouldn't matter on most shots and that the real difference (if there is one) would only manifest itself on extreme draw and follow shots. So, with a good stroke, trying to draw the cue ball 4-5 feet back from an object ball that is 4-5 feet away from the cue ball, would it be better to have a heavier cue or not? It doesn't sound like you think it would make any difference. <hr /></blockquote>
My uninvited response:

The weight of the cue affects one's "feel" or "touch", the timing of the stroke, the perceived speed of the table, and one's ease and success at executing various shots. I'm speaking in general tendencies and not in absolute terms as one player would experience cues of different weights. The heavier the cue, the greater the tendency is one will loose "feel" or "touch". And conversely the lighter the cue, the more "feel" or "touch" one could perceive. The heavier the cue, the slower the timing of the stroke tends to be. The lighter the cue, the faster the timing tends to be. The heavier the cue, the faster the speed of the table would be perceived to be. The lighter the cue, the slower the speed of the table would be perceived to be.

There are different types of shots and different styles of play. A player may find a heavier cue better for some shots while a lighter cue is better for others. In choosing the weight of one cue to play with, I suggest picking one that will capitalize on your primary shots of your game while minimizing the negative effects of others. For example, if your game relies mostly on draw shots and moving the cue ball around into position for the next shot, then use the weight of cue that best gets this done for you. If instead your style of play relies more on rolling the cue ball around easily, then use the weight of cue that best helps you do this. Just shoot around with varying weights of cues and see what works best for you.

The difficulty of a draw shot usually depends more on the distance between the cue ball and object ball than it does on the distance you want to draw the cue ball back. So let's say the cue ball is 2 feet away from the object ball and you want to draw the cue ball back 4-5 feet. Most average players should be able to do this, but probably can't. And if you can't, then the first thing I would suspect to be the problem is your technique. The second and often the culprit is the tip used on the cue. Some tips make drawing the cue ball a snap while others require a power draw type of stroke just to move the thing a couple feet while risking a miscue. And the last thing I would look at adjusting would be the weight of the cue.

Jal
01-03-2008, 05:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Thanks for the reply, Jim. I guess what I'm asking is that for someone who isn't a very powerful player, would it be easier for them to move the cue ball around with a 1-2 ounce heavier cue as a general rule than it would be with a lighter cue? I'm guessing it wouldn't matter on most shots and that the real difference (if there is one) would only manifest itself on extreme draw and follow shots. So, with a good stroke, trying to draw the cue ball 4-5 feet back from an object ball that is 4-5 feet away from the cue ball, would it be better to have a heavier cue or not? It doesn't sound like you think it would make any difference. <hr /></blockquote>Bsmutz, I can only give you roundabout theoretical answer, but I think a useful one, in addition to what the other posters have said. Let's compare two sort of extremes, a 25 oz cue and a 15 oz cue, both at centerball and at max tip offset (1/2 the radius of the cueball).

So suppose that for a particular player, his optimal cue weight for a centerball hit was 25 oz. How much spin and speed would he thus lose by using a 15 oz cue instead? The answer is about 4% (4 percent). Not much.

Suppose that for another player, his optimal cue weight for a centerball hit was 15 oz. By using a 25 oz cue, he would only lose, again, about 4%.

Now what if the first player with the 25 oz cue, which is optimal for him for a centerball hit, hits at max offset. For him, at this offset, the ideal cue weight would be just about 19 oz. So how much does he lose with his 25 oz cue? Answer: 1%. Virtually nothing.

And suppose our second player with the 15 oz cue, which is optimal for him at centerball, also hits at max offset. His ideal cue weight would now be about 11 oz. Using his 15 oz cue instead, he would lose just 1.4% in speed and spin.

So there isn't a heck of a lot of difference, even looking at these extremes. And it really doesn't depend on how much force you can apply (how powerful your stroke is), but on the mass of your arm. The above numbers assume that the same force is applied by the muscles to the player's combined arm and cue (total mass), however much that is, large or small.

When it comes to power shots though, a little heavier cue than predicted by simple physics is probably better, because your muscles can probably generate more force with a heavier cue. But that's a pretty useless statement unless you know what physics predicts, and you can't know that unless you know the equivalent mass of your arm. I don't know of any way to determine that, other than experimenting with different cue weights.

Jim

1Time
01-03-2008, 05:19 PM
The mass of one's arm is irrelevant.

1Time
01-03-2008, 05:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> -I used various weights taped to the middle of a cheap cue to make the cue heavier.Eric <hr /></blockquote>
I think this is a brilliant idea, of course not new, but one I had not seriously considered before. Now I can temporarily add weight to my cue and get better results with one of my 8-ball breaks. Thanks

bsmutz
01-03-2008, 05:40 PM
Thanks for the "uninvited response", LOL. I'll try to remember to invite you next time. I guess I'm too insensitive to really tell the difference in weight. When I was young, I always played with a heavy cue (22oz. if I could find one). I felt like I controlled the heavy cue better and felt like the lighter cues were too prone to letting my stroke wander side to side. When I restarted playing a few years ago, I did some playing around with different weights using the same cue. I then felt like I had better control with a lighter cue. I took all the weight bolts out of the cues I played with. A few months ago, I got it in my head that I might be able to put more draw/follow on the ball with a heavier cue and put the heaviest weight bolt back into my playing cue. By then, I had a Sniper tip and was getting very good action. For some reason, the heavier weight didn't seem to make much difference to me as far as most normal shots go. A couple of weeks ago, I saw an extreme draw shot that Mike Massey made where he shot a hanger almost full length of the table and drew the cue ball back to the bottom rail and back up to the top rail, so almost 27' total. I tried practicing that shot for a little while and quickly realized that no matter how hard I practice, I will never, ever be able to duplicate that shot. But, it did get me to wondering about cue weight and how it relates to extreme draw/follow. My draw stroke is pretty dependable from 3-4' away but above that it gets very iffy. From a foot or two away, I can easily draw the length of the table and have no problem with extreme English getting the desired action.
I guess I'll do some more experimenting and see if I can learn to "feel" the difference better.

Eric.
01-03-2008, 05:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> -I used various weights taped to the middle of a cheap cue to make the cue heavier.Eric <hr /></blockquote>
I think this is a brilliant idea, of course not new, but one I had not seriously considered before. Now I can temporarily add weight to my cue and get better results with one of my 8-ball breaks. Thanks <hr /></blockquote>

I used automotive lead wheel weights. You can get em in 1/2 ounce increments or so. Feel free to use the idea (make sure it's not your good cue, tho).

Eric

pooltchr
01-03-2008, 06:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The mass of one's arm is irrelevant. <hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps...but the energy produced by the movement of that arm is very relevant. Far more energy is produced by the muscles than is by the weight of the cue.

Steve

1Time
01-03-2008, 07:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The mass of one's arm is irrelevant. <hr /></blockquote>

Perhaps...but the energy produced by the movement of that arm is very relevant. Far more energy is produced by the muscles than is by the weight of the cue.

Steve <hr /></blockquote>

OK and duh.

Jal
01-03-2008, 08:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The mass of one's arm is irrelevant. <hr /></blockquote>Why do you say that?

Jim

1Time
01-04-2008, 12:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The mass of one's arm is irrelevant. <hr /></blockquote>Why do you say that?

Jim <hr /></blockquote>
Who do you think will break with more force - a grossly obese 65 year old woman with an arm of greater mass who has never played pool before (oh my), or a 145 pound 30 year old man with an arm of lesser mass who has played at a high level of pool for the past 10 years?

Jal
01-04-2008, 04:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> The mass of one's arm is irrelevant. <hr /></blockquote>Why do you say that?

Jim <hr /></blockquote>
Who do you think will break with more force - a grossly obese 65 year old woman with an arm of greater mass who has never played pool before (oh my), or a 145 pound 30 year old man with an arm of lesser mass who has played at a high level of pool for the past 10 years? <hr /></blockquote>Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. Is the guy one of those girly-boy types, and has never really gotten the hang of the game?

Suppose you handed them a 100 lb cue, a 1 oz cue, and an 18 oz cue. With which stick do you think they would be able produce the most cueball speed, and why?

Jim

1Time
01-04-2008, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. Is the guy one of those girly-boy types, and has never really gotten the hang of the game?<hr /></blockquote>
Well like I said before, he has 10 years of pool playing at a high level. And his only other relevant characteristic is the mass of his arm is less than the woman's, which proves how irrelevant the mass of one's arm is. Please, go right ahead and take your time and think that one through.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>Suppose you handed them a 100 lb cue, a 1 oz cue, and an 18 oz cue. With which stick do you think they would be able produce the most cueball speed, and why?

Jim <hr /></blockquote>
Well I'm not really a physics student type, but the obvious answer to me is the 18 oz cue. And my simple explanation for this is because if 100 lb or 1 oz cues broke a rack of balls better than an 18 oz cue, they'd be selling break cues in those weights. Of course I'm sure some of the guys who frequent this board could give you a good physics based answer though.

Jal
01-04-2008, 03:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Hmm, I'll have to think about that one. Is the guy one of those girly-boy types, and has never really gotten the hang of the game?<hr /></blockquote>
Well like I said before, he has 10 years of pool playing at a high level. And his only other relevant characteristic is the mass of his arm is less than the woman's, which proves how irrelevant the mass of one's arm is. Please, go right ahead and take your time and think that one through.<hr /></blockquote>I was just kidding 1Time. And I did miss your qualification that he has played at a high level.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>Suppose you handed them a 100 lb cue, a 1 oz cue, and an 18 oz cue. With which stick do you think they would be able produce the most cueball speed, and why?

Jim <hr /></blockquote>
Well I'm not really a physics student type, but the obvious answer to me is the 18 oz cue. And my simple explanation for this is because if 100 lb or 1 oz cues broke a rack of balls better than an 18 oz cue, they'd be selling break cues in those weights. Of course I'm sure some of the guys who frequent this board could give you a good physics based answer though. <hr /></blockquote>You are correct of course; the 18 oz cue will be better. But why?

The answer is arm mass. For any applied force by the muscles, you can only get your arm moving so fast. Thus, the 1 oz cue will be moving only so fast as well, and will not have very much momentum to propel the cueball. Increasing the weight of the cue helps, up to a point. After that, things go down hill again because it becomes harder and harder to get any velocity on the stick. That, plus the simple fact of physics that the most velocity the cueball can acquire is twice that of the stick, rules out the 100 lb cue.

So there is an optimal weight that provides the most cueball speed. And it all depends on the mass of the cueball and the mass (actually moment of inertia) of one's arm. But as the calculations show, you can be many ounces off the optimal weight and hardly any loss of speed or spin will result.

Jim

1Time
01-04-2008, 07:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> The answer is arm mass. <hr /></blockquote>
No, I already proved this is wrong.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>But as the calculations show, you can be many ounces off the optimal weight and hardly any loss of speed or spin will result. <hr /></blockquote>
That's good to know.

So why do I get a noticeably bigger and better break with a 21 oz cue than I do a 17 oz cue? Could it be for the same reason a baseball player hits a baseball farther with his "home run" bat than with a lighter one?

Jal
01-05-2008, 01:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> The answer is arm mass. <hr /></blockquote>
No, I already proved this is wrong.<hr /></blockquote>You gave an example of why arm mass doesn't matter once you get the cue up to speed and the collision begins. But up to that point, it does matter, in principle. That is, it dictates that for a particular player hitting at a particular tip offset, there is one optimal cue mass that will produce the most speed and spin on the cueball. However, and also according to the same physics, it's not really critical. Different weighted cues, within reason, will produce virtually the same result.

I've given you the reason, or shall we say "a reason", why a 1 oz cue isn't very practical (arm mass). Can you offer another a compelling one? If you can't, that doesn't prove that the one I offered is right, of course. You can believe it or not, as you wish. I'll guess that if the "right" person verified it, such as Dr. Dave or Bob Jewett or Mike Page, you would probably be more inclined to accept it.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr>So why do I get a noticeably bigger and better break with a 21 oz cue than I do a 17 oz cue? Could it be for the same reason a baseball player hits a baseball farther with his "home run" bat than with a lighter one? <hr /></blockquote>My comments have been directed at normal shots, where the same amount of force can be generated by the muscles for both lighter and heavier cues. But when we're talking about large forces, such as with a break shot, the heavier cue might help you to produce more.

Also, you might be getting your upper arm into the act. This means more arm mass is set into motion, making your optimal cue weight larger than for other shots. I haven't done the math for this situation, so I don't know if that relative insensitivity to cue weight that applies to normal shots also applies here too.

And maybe your particular 21 oz cue is more efficient, ie, it doesn't lose as much energy during the collision. This could be because of the tip or its overall construction. It's hard to say without controlling the variables, which is one advantage that doing it "on paper" has.

Jim

Artemus
01-06-2008, 04:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
I used automotive lead wheel weights. You can get em in 1/2 ounce increments or so. Feel free to use the idea (make sure it's not your good cue, tho).
Eric <hr /></blockquote>

Why didn't you just use weight bolts at varying weights in the butt of your cue along with heavier shafts that had the same joint size? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Artemus
01-06-2008, 04:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Instead of comparing cues of different weights at the same speed, it's more appropriate to compare them with a given amount of force applied to and by a player's arm.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

According to you and this theory, it would carry over into ALL sports. The guy with the BIGGEST arm mass is going to be the best at everything that requires speed and power whether it's boxing, baseball, arm wrestling, hockey, quarterback in football, etc. It doesn't stand to reason that it could only be in pool and nothing else.

Look, I'll be honest with you right up front about this arm mass theory and you can produce as many formulas that come out mathmatically as you desire. I don't care what numbers show and I'm just going to be blunt. This is the most ridiculous and insane thing I've ever seen written. I've been around too many guys with THIN but strong muscled arms who were tremendously explosive in a variety of sports including pool and it didn't matter whether they had a light or heavy cue in their hands, a light or heavy baseball bat, or arm wrestled against a guy that had 5" more on their arm. They were fast and they were extremely powerful. Arm mass has NOTHING to do with grip stength, natural speed, forearm strength, timing, coordination, reaction time or flexion.

Who do you think would win a BREAK Contest or Power draw contest, this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATmID0cCP8 or Johnny Archer with his scrawny twig arms? How about this guy vs. Mika Immonen? How about this guy vs. Nick Varner, George Breedlove, Mike Massey, or a whole host of others, even if he stayed at a table for 2 years straight and had professional training in pool?

Jal
01-06-2008, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Instead of comparing cues of different weights at the same speed, it's more appropriate to compare them with a given amount of force applied to and by a player's arm.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

According to you and this theory, it would carry over into ALL sports. The guy with the BIGGEST arm mass is going to be the best at everything that requires speed and power whether it's boxing, baseball, arm wrestling, hockey, quarterback in football, etc.<hr /></blockquote>Artemus, where did I say that? The issue at hand is not which arm will produce the greatest speed and spin. Rather, given a particular arm mass on a particular player, is there a cue weight that'll produce the most speed and spin? And what is it? And does it make much of a difference if another weight is used instead? The answers are, according to my reckoning: yes, don't know (unless one happened to know what that mass was), and no. (Just to note, it's not really arm mass but moment of inertia, which can be converted into an equivalent arm mass.)

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Look, I'll be honest with you right up front about this arm mass theory and you can produce as many formulas that come out mathmatically as you desire. I don't care what numbers show and I'm just going to be blunt. This is the most ridiculous and insane thing I've ever seen written.<hr /></blockquote>How about speaking your mind for a change? I think you're still holding that "anecdotal evidence" phrase against me. I guess I should try to smooth things over about that, but several insults later, for some reason (?) I don't feel all that disposed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>I've been around too many guys with THIN but strong muscled arms who were tremendously explosive in a variety of sports including pool and it didn't matter whether they had a light or heavy cue in their hands...<hr /></blockquote>Isn't this what I've been saying? And not to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure "pooltchr" expressed the very same idea before I did in the other thread.

Jim

Artemus
01-06-2008, 06:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Instead of comparing cues of different weights at the same speed, it's more appropriate to compare them with a given amount of force applied to and by a player's arm.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

According to you and this theory, it would carry over into ALL sports. The guy with the BIGGEST arm mass is going to be the best at everything that requires speed and power whether it's boxing, baseball, arm wrestling, hockey, quarterback in football, etc.<hr /></blockquote>Artemus, where did I say that? The issue at hand is not which arm will produce the greatest speed and spin. Rather, given a particular arm mass on a particular player, is there a cue weight that'll produce the most speed and spin? And what is it? And does it make much of a difference if another weight is used instead? The answers are, according to my reckoning: yes, don't know (unless one happened to know what that mass was), and no. (Just to note, it's not really arm mass but moment of inertia, which can be converted into an equivalent arm mass.)

<font color="red"> This was posted by YOU in another thread. I think the last paragraph as witten by YOU sums it up. "The force or torque that's applied by the muscles has to accelerate both the arm and the stick. If the stick is too light, you lose some potential stick momentum because of the arm's mass, ie, increasing the stick's mass doesn't increase the combined mass of the stick and arm proportionally. On the other hand, if the stick is too heavy, speed (momentum again) suffers.

Thus, there is an optimal stick mass and a way to calculate it IF you know your arm's mass (actually the arm's moment of inertia which can be converted to an equivalent mass). Although not easy to measure, you can make an educated guess at a "typical" value given people's preferences for cue weight. According to this, it should be roughly 18 oz.

<font color="purple"> In this thread you state that "FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES" in the weight of the cue amount to only a fraction of a percent. "Taking this into account, it turns out that the functional differences between an 18 and 21 oz cue are even less than your calculations indicate: more like a fraction of a percent. But this is pretty much in the same ballpark." </font color>

<font color="purple"> AND HERE WE GO BELOW. IN ANOTHER THREAD YOU STATED THIS, AND NOW YOU'RE BACK TO BLOWING IN THE WIND ABOUT ARM MASS AND FINDING THE ULITMATE WEIGHT THAT MATCHES UP TO MASS. </font color>

However, as Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett point out, when it comes to applying large forces, as with a break or power draw, the assumption that the same force can be generated with differently weighted cues is no longer valid. Physiology now enters into it. If you did happen to know the equivalent mass of your arm, the best that physics could do is report the minimal cue weight that is best suited to you for any particular tip offset." </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Look, I'll be honest with you right up front about this arm mass theory and you can produce as many formulas that come out mathmatically as you desire. I don't care what numbers show and I'm just going to be blunt. This is the most ridiculous and insane thing I've ever seen written.<hr /></blockquote>How about speaking your mind for a change? I think you're still holding that "anecdotal evidence" phrase against me. I guess I should try to smooth things over about that, but several insults later, for some reason (?) I don't feel all that disposed.

<font color="red"> I'm extremely happy to hear you say that. Does your response have to do with the mass of your backbone? </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>I've been around too many guys with THIN but strong muscled arms who were tremendously explosive in a variety of sports including pool and it didn't matter whether they had a light or heavy cue in their hands...<hr /></blockquote>Isn't this what I've been saying? And not to put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure "pooltchr" expressed the very same idea before I did in the other thread.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> I don't know what you've been saying because you seem to change your views from one thread to another like the way a windsock blows. Btw, you never answered my question. Who do you think would win the BREAK Contest or POWER DRAW contest, regardless of arm mass and the weight of the cue used by any and all contenders that I mentioned? </font color>

Jal
01-06-2008, 11:50 PM
Yes, I mentioned arm mass (equivalent) all over the place. You are correct in that. It is an indisputable fact. I hereby plead nolo contendere and will sign an affidavit to that effect. If asked (nicely), I will even enter the bowels of Beelzebub and declare unto God and the spirit of Strother Martin that I have done so.

But nowhere in this thread, the other thread, or anywhere else that I can remember, did I ever say anything about more massive arms or less massive arms being more able or less able to produce cueball speed!

And as far as that guy in the video beating the players you mentioned in a power shot contest, whether he could or couldn't would be just another bit of anecdotal evidence and prove nothing, besides being irrelevant to the discusion. (Speaking of spine, I'd like that guy in the video to know that I would still respect him if he lost (unlike you Artemus), and even if he's never come close to running two balls.)

Jim

CarolNYC
01-07-2008, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I used automotive lead wheel weights<hr /></blockquote>
HA HA HA HA

Mike made my sledgehammer 21,but then, alot of people break with 18

Carol

Artemus
01-07-2008, 08:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Yes, I mentioned arm mass (equivalent) all over the place. You are correct in that. It is an indisputable fact. I hereby plead nolo contendere and will sign an affidavit to that effect. If asked (nicely), I will even enter the bowels of Beelzebub and declare unto God and the spirit of Strother Martin that I have done so.

And as far as that guy in the video beating the players you mentioned in a power shot contest, whether he could or couldn't would be just another bit of anecdotal evidence and prove nothing, besides being irrelevant to the discusion.

<font color="red"> I don't know what you have against anecdotal evidence because that's what REAL pool players can relate to. Tell me, what controlled human experiments have you conducted with players of high skill level involving different cue weights and arm mass to verify your numbers?
NONE? That's too bad, I forgot you stated somewhere that it was all theoretical. Dude,you gotta do the human thingy on a real pool table to back those numbers and theories out, otherwise I can't respect YOU. </font color>

(Speaking of spine, I'd like that guy in the video to know that I would still respect him if he lost (unlike you Artemus), and even if he's never come close to running two balls.)
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> Ouch, that really cut through me like a knife and was just flat out mean. Btw, can you run 2 balls? </font color>

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 09:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Yes, I mentioned arm mass (equivalent) all over the place. You are correct in that. It is an indisputable fact. I hereby plead nolo contendere and will sign an affidavit to that effect. If asked (nicely), I will even enter the bowels of Beelzebub and declare unto God and the spirit of Strother Martin that I have done so.

And as far as that guy in the video beating the players you mentioned in a power shot contest, whether he could or couldn't would be just another bit of anecdotal evidence and prove nothing, besides being irrelevant to the discusion.

<font color="red"> I don't know what you have against anecdotal evidence because that's what REAL pool players can relate to. Tell me, what controlled human experiments have you conducted with players of high skill level involving different cue weights and arm mass to verify your numbers?
NONE? That's too bad, I forgot you stated somewhere that it was all theoretical. Dude,you gotta do the human thingy on a real pool table to back those numbers and theories out, otherwise I can't respect YOU. </font color>

(Speaking of spine, I'd like that guy in the video to know that I would still respect him if he lost (unlike you Artemus), and even if he's never come close to running two balls.)
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> Ouch, that really cut through me like a knife and was just flat out mean. Btw, can you run 2 balls? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>I think what we have here is a "failure to communicate."

Artemus, give Jal a break. His postings and responses have been reasonable and make sense. You have misinterpreted some of his conclusions and have honestly been a little mean. I know I shouldn't stick my nose into matters like this, but I hate reading so much negative energy.

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
01-07-2008, 09:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
I used automotive lead wheel weights. You can get em in 1/2 ounce increments or so. Feel free to use the idea (make sure it's not your good cue, tho).
Eric <hr /></blockquote>

Geez, Artemus, you don't believe in the K.I.S.S. method, do you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you have lead/wheel weights, it's easy to tape on, say, 5 ounces and turn your 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue to see how the extra weight plays.

Isn't that easier than tryin to add 5 oz's in weight bolt and shaft swaps?! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Eric

Why didn't you just use weight bolts at varying weights in the butt of your cue along with heavier shafts that had the same joint size? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Artemus
01-07-2008, 10:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
I used automotive lead wheel weights. You can get em in 1/2 ounce increments or so. Feel free to use the idea (make sure it's not your good cue, tho).
Eric <hr /></blockquote>

MAn, Artimus, you don't believe in the K.I.S.S. method, do you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you have lead/wheel weights, it's easy to tape on, say, 5 ounces and turn your 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue to see how the extra weight plays.

<font color="red"> Hey, I've NEVER even changed my own oil on a car. What would I be doing with lead wheel weights from an auto store? LMAO I think I have a lug wrench back in the trunk, maybe that'll work with some duct tape. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif </font color>

Isn't that easier than tryin to add 5 oz's in weight bolt and shaft swaps?! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

<font color="red"> Uhhhhhh, NO! </font color>

Eric

Why didn't you just use weight bolts at varying weights in the butt of your cue along with heavier shafts that had the same joint size? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Artemus
01-07-2008, 10:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> I think what we have here is a "failure to communicate."

Artemus, give Jal a break. His postings and responses have been reasonable and make sense.

<font color="red"> Would that be to a vast majority of the members or just a select few? Here is a post he made in another thread that makes the most sense: "In theory, relative to each other a heavier cue is more efficient for center ball hits, while a lighter one is more efficient at putting spin on the cueball. But's it's difficult to put absolute numbers on it for a particular player."

Take particular note of the "IN THEORY". Let's post it again, "IN THEORY". Now take note of "BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO PUT ABSOLUTE NUMBERS ON IT FOR A PARTICULAR PLAYER". Now THAT makes sense! </font color>

You have misinterpreted some of his conclusions and have honestly been a little mean. I know I shouldn't stick my nose into matters like this, but I hate reading so much negative energy.

<font color="red"> I figured one of the gang would come riding in on his Harley sooner or later to back up another gang member. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you. Can you or JAL produce a formula that definitely proves the energy is negative as opposed to positive? I need some clarification. </font color>

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 11:45 AM
Physics alone, with many simplifying assumptions, doesn't tell the whole story. The most comfortable cue weight is a very individualized decision based on many non-physics factors (e.g., muscle physiology). I think the links under "cue - stick weight" here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html) summarize things fairly well.

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
01-07-2008, 11:59 AM
I assume you were referring to this particular post that's following. If so, THAT makes sense.

The optimal cue stick weight for achieving maximum cue ball speed will be different for each individual. The only way to know is to experiment.

Here is a longer, physically-based, argument:
Assuming a consistent hit on the cue ball, the cue ball speed if a function of only cue stick "momentum" (the product of mass and speed) at impact. Cue stick momentum at cue ball impact is a function only of how much "impulse" (the sum of force over time) the grip hand delivers to the cue stick during the stroke. The shape of the impulse curve (i.e., how force changes with time during the stroke) depends on stroke mechanics and muscle physiology. Both of these things can vary significantly from one individual to the next. Even if two players have the same stroke technique, one person might have more fast-twitch than slow-twitch muscle fibers and be able to deliver more impulse with a different weight cue.

But again, all of this techno-babble is really unimportant if your only goal is to find out your optimal cue stick weight for the best break. The only way to find out is to experiment.

PS: This same question and answer also applies to baseball bat selection. Some people do better with a heavy bat (e.g., like Babe Ruth did), and others prefer a lighter bat. It all comes down to how much "impulse" you can deliver to achieve the most "momentum" at impact.

Eric.
01-07-2008, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
I used automotive lead wheel weights. You can get em in 1/2 ounce increments or so. Feel free to use the idea (make sure it's not your good cue, tho).
Eric <hr /></blockquote>

MAn, Artimus, you don't believe in the K.I.S.S. method, do you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you have lead/wheel weights, it's easy to tape on, say, 5 ounces and turn your 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue to see how the extra weight plays.

<font color="red"> Hey, I've NEVER even changed my own oil on a car. What would I be doing with lead wheel weights from an auto store? LMAO I think I have a lug wrench back in the trunk, maybe that'll work with some duct tape. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif </font color>

Isn't that easier than tryin to add 5 oz's in weight bolt and shaft swaps?! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

<font color="red"> Uhhhhhh, NO! </font color>

Eric

Why didn't you just use weight bolts at varying weights in the butt of your cue along with heavier shafts that had the same joint size? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Think about this for a sec...how many weight bolts of different weights do you have laying around? How many shafts do you have that vary more than 1 oz in weight? For that matter, what shaft and what weightbolt do you use to turn a 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

For the sake of argument, the lead wheel weights are in any Auto parts store, are cheap and usually are marked with their exact weights i.e. .25 oz, .5 oz, 1 oz...

Dude, if you gonna start drinking early, next time, invite me too (teasing).

Eric &gt;maybe it's me

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 12:28 PM
Artemus,

In the future, please try to use the forum's quoting method (see the subject line and the example below). When you don't quote and/or when you use color, it is not clear who is writing what.

Thanks,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> I assume you were referring to this particular post that's following. If so, THAT makes sense.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>The optimal cue stick weight for achieving maximum cue ball speed will be different for each individual. The only way to know is to experiment.

Here is a longer, physically-based, argument:
Assuming a consistent hit on the cue ball, the cue ball speed if a function of only cue stick "momentum" (the product of mass and speed) at impact. Cue stick momentum at cue ball impact is a function only of how much "impulse" (the sum of force over time) the grip hand delivers to the cue stick during the stroke. The shape of the impulse curve (i.e., how force changes with time during the stroke) depends on stroke mechanics and muscle physiology. Both of these things can vary significantly from one individual to the next. Even if two players have the same stroke technique, one person might have more fast-twitch than slow-twitch muscle fibers and be able to deliver more impulse with a different weight cue.

But again, all of this techno-babble is really unimportant if your only goal is to find out your optimal cue stick weight for the best break. The only way to find out is to experiment.

PS: This same question and answer also applies to baseball bat selection. Some people do better with a heavy bat (e.g., like Babe Ruth did), and others prefer a lighter bat. It all comes down to how much "impulse" you can deliver to achieve the most "momentum" at impact.<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>

SKennedy
01-07-2008, 12:44 PM
IMHO, this weight thing is overdone relative to a cue stick. Use what you feel comfortable with. As to force of hit, etc., and as someone tried to interject a little homerun hitting in baseball....it is more about speed than anything else. Granted, force equals mass X acceleration, and both of these carry equal "weight" in determining force, but the difference between the weights of the cue stick (17 to 21 oz.) are pretty negligible. I use an 18 oz cue for breaking as I get good speed. I use the weight cue stick in my play that feels balanced and comfortable to me. Billiards is not a game of brawn and muscle. As to homerun hitting, it is all about bat speed. Granted, the same speed with a heavier bat produces more force, but the key is the speed. I might be able to swing a 34 oz bat, but not with nearly enough speed to put the ball over the fence. But, I may be able to hit homers with a 31 oz bat cause I can generate enough bat speed with it.
How much force do we need in pool? I have experimented with my break shot placing lots of "muscle and body" into my shot and have also done it just concentrating on generating lots of speed with my stroke and keeping body movements minimal. When I focus on speed I think I deliver the most force to the balls. Of course, these results are subjective.

Artemus
01-07-2008, 01:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>

Think about this for a sec...how many weight bolts of different weights do you have laying around?

<font color="red"> OK, I thought about it. I have weight bolts that range from .10 oz to 3.00 oz. in .05 increments. I never actually counted them, but do the math. I guess 60 bolts or so, maybe a few more for good measure. </font color>

How many shafts do you have that vary more than 1 oz in weight?

<font color="red"> From the lightest to the heaviest it would probably be only 4 or 5. However, there are many more that fall in between the one ounce boundary at different weights. </font color>

For that matter, what shaft and what weightbolt do you use to turn a 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="red"> I thought 23 oz was the max limit. Why would you want a 25 oz cue? I can change a 17 oz cue (with no weight bolt and the lightest shaft) into ANY weight that I want with the various bolts and shafts.

But what good does it do? Although I can change out the weight of a cue from 17 oz. to 23 oz in .05 oz increments, which I've done MANY times and experimented exhaustively with them not only by myself along with other top notch players, I come on HERE to discuss what happens with a light or heavy cue and some theoretician/scientist pops up with, "it's just anecdotal evidence" crap as he lays out some zany formula on arm mass and cue weights that's nonsensical in actual fact. Go figure.</font color>

For the sake of argument, the lead wheel weights are in any Auto parts store, are cheap and usually are marked with their exact weights i.e. .25 oz, .5 oz, 1 oz...

Dude, if you gonna start drinking early, next time, invite me too (teasing).

<font color="red"> Hey, early or late that's fine by me, c'mon. </font color>

Eric &gt;maybe it's me <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr>As to homerun hitting, it is all about bat speed. Granted, the same speed with a heavier bat produces more force, but the key is the speed. I might be able to swing a 34 oz bat, but not with nearly enough speed to put the ball over the fence. But, I may be able to hit homers with a 31 oz bat cause I can generate enough bat speed with it.<hr /></blockquote>You might be able to generate even more speed with a 20 oz bat, but it won't necessarily be more effective. It's not just about bat speed! It's about the combination of speed and weight. Similar arguments can be made (and backed up with physics) for a pool break shot.

Dave

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr>As to homerun hitting, it is all about bat speed. Granted, the same speed with a heavier bat produces more force, but the key is the speed. I might be able to swing a 34 oz bat, but not with nearly enough speed to put the ball over the fence. But, I may be able to hit homers with a 31 oz bat cause I can generate enough bat speed with it.<hr /></blockquote>You might be able to generate even more speed with a 20 oz bat, but it won't necessarily be more effective. It's not just about bat speed! It's about the combination of speed and weight. Similar arguments can be made (and backed up with physics) for a pool break shot.<hr /></blockquote>The pool physics derivation can be found in TP A.30 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-30.pdf). Equation 7 clearly shows how the cue ball speed depends on both stick speed and mass. Even if you don't understand the physics, you might understand the implications of the equation. If you don't think you will, or if you don't care, then don't look at it.

Regards,
Dave

Artemus
01-07-2008, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Artemus,

In the future, please try to use the forum's quoting method (see the subject line and the example below). When you don't quote and/or when you use color, it is not clear who is writing what.

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I'm trying Dave, and you're 100% correct. I can't even understand the posts myself after writing them.

Eric.
01-07-2008, 01:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>

Think about this for a sec...how many weight bolts of different weights do you have laying around?

<font color="red"> OK, I thought about it. I have weight bolts that range from .10 oz to 3.00 oz. in .05 increments. I never actually counted them, but do the math. I guess 60 bolts or so, maybe a few more for good measure. </font color>

How many shafts do you have that vary more than 1 oz in weight?

<font color="red"> From the lightest to the heaviest it would probably be only 4 or 5. However, there are many more that fall in between the one ounce boundary. </font color>

For that matter, what shaft and what weightbolt do you use to turn a 20 oz cue into a 25 oz cue? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="red"> I thought 23 oz was the max limit. Why would you want a 25 oz cue? I can change a 17 oz cue (with no weight bolt and the lightest shaft) into ANY weight that I want with the various bolts and shafts. </font color>

For the sake of argument, the lead wheel weights are in any Auto parts store, are cheap and usually are marked with their exact weights i.e. .25 oz, .5 oz, 1 oz...

Dude, if you gonna start drinking early, next time, invite me too (teasing).

<font color="red"> Hey, early or late that's fine by me, c'mon. </font color>

Eric &gt;maybe it's me <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

OK, I think we are on the same page now.

Regarding the original topic, I was thinking the OP was thinking how more weight (more than the 23oz "limit" for leagues, or what not) would play like.

Also, Artemus, you have a good supply of equipment and stuff. Most of us don't have that many weight bolts and truthfully, it's easier for me to find/buy some stick-on weights than to buy some weightbolts.

I was referring to a 26 oz cue I tried out (cheap 20oz cue with 6 oz of weight added to it). I was curious what adding a whole bunch more weight to a cue would play like.

SKennedy
01-07-2008, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr>As to homerun hitting, it is all about bat speed. Granted, the same speed with a heavier bat produces more force, but the key is the speed. I might be able to swing a 34 oz bat, but not with nearly enough speed to put the ball over the fence. But, I may be able to hit homers with a 31 oz bat cause I can generate enough bat speed with it.<hr /></blockquote>You might be able to generate even more speed with a 20 oz bat, but it won't necessarily be more effective. It's not just about bat speed! It's about the combination of speed and weight. Similar arguments can be made (and backed up with physics) for a pool break shot.

Dave <hr /></blockquote>

That is true about a 20 oz, but only because we can't physically produce enough speed to compensate for the reduced mass. Comparing a 20 oz bat with a typical major league weighted bat would be like comparing a 21 oz cue against a cue weighing about 14 oz. Also, more force is needed to hit a homerun than any force required on the pool table. Bottom line is that you can make it as complicated as you want, but F=m(a) is pretty simple. And comparing a 21 oz to an 18 oz cue is not really that signficant a difference when your ability to generate speed with either one does not vary to a large extent because of the weight differential not being that much and your ability to stroke with speed is not all that affected. Compare the body mechanics for a cue stick stroke with a varying 3 oz weight in which the mass is close to the body and the same 3 oz in which the mass is being swung away from the body as a baseball bat. With the bat, the weight makes a tremendous difference in speed and subsequently the total force. I suspect the speed differential for the cue stick 3 oz one way or the other is much less. And again, just how much force do you actually need in billiards? I use the stick weight that makes me the most comfortable with my cue ball speed control. I can hit a cue ball hard enough to do pretty much whatever I need to do with a 17 or 21 oz stick. I can't hit a 400 ft homerun with a 27 oz bat or a 34 oz bat.

SKennedy
01-07-2008, 01:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Equation 7 clearly shows how the cue ball speed depends on both stick speed and mass. Even if you don't understand the physics, you might understand the implications of the equation. If you don't think you will, or if you don't care, then don't look at it.
Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I cared enough to look at it. It look to me like someone with a Ph.D got a hold of a simple equation and decided to make it more complex. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Bottom line....I don't care what the exact speed of the cue ball is going to be and I certainly don't know my exact velocities, etc. I do know that the speed of the cue ball is determined by the speed of my stroke and the mass of the stick...and that's also the gist of the equation. All other things being equal, look at the total change in cue ball speed when you go from an 18 oz to a 21 oz cue stick using Equation 7....."Even if you don't understand the physics, you might understand the implications of the equation [and calculations]. If you don't think you will, or if you don't care, then don't look at it." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 02:40 PM
I'm sorry if you took offense. I didn't mean to belittle anybody with my posting of the physics link. I know most people don't relate to (or care about) this stuff, but some people do find it interesting and useful.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Equation 7 clearly shows how the cue ball speed depends on both stick speed and mass. Even if you don't understand the physics, you might understand the implications of the equation. If you don't think you will, or if you don't care, then don't look at it.
Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I cared enough to look at it. It look to me like someone with a Ph.D got a hold of a simple equation and decided to make it more complex. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Bottom line....I don't care what the exact speed of the cue ball is going to be and I certainly don't know my exact velocities, etc. I do know that the speed of the cue ball is determined by the speed of my stroke and the mass of the stick...and that's also the gist of the equation. All other things being equal, look at the total change in cue ball speed when you go from an 18 oz to a 21 oz cue stick using Equation 7....."Even if you don't understand the physics, you might understand the implications of the equation [and calculations]. If you don't think you will, or if you don't care, then don't look at it." /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

SKennedy
01-07-2008, 03:20 PM
Dave, I did not take offense...reference the grins...
I have seen you post enough on here to know you always mean well.
I sent another message but it did not go thru for some reason. I won't go into details, but from your own equation you can see that the mass of the cue stick is not a significant factor influencing the cue ball speed. It is one of the more insignificant variables. Kind of like me when I hit that 350 lb opponent at my top speed and ended up 10 ft from whence I came, flat on my back and semi-conscious. He was unfazed and looked at me like I was a gnat. 21 oz vs 18 oz would be like me going and eating a donut before hitting him again...at about the same speed.

On the other hand, I did skip 2 semesters of physics in college.

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 03:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SKennedy:</font><hr> Dave, I did not take offense...reference the grins...<hr /></blockquote>Grins don't always convey true emotion and intent well ... thanks for clarifying.

I think cue weight can make a difference with a person's break power. Think about the extremes (as Bob has suggested in the past). Do you think you could spread the balls as well with a 15 oz cue as you could with a 25 oz cue? I don't think I could. Some people have fast-twitch muscle fibers that allow them to generate large forces at incredible speed over a short distance with a lighter cue. People with slow-twitch fibers need a longer stroke, but can usually generate more power over a larger distance with a heavier cue. This is what I think anyway, based on my experiences and knowledge with other sports and brief study of biomechanics. I think every individual has an optimum cue weight that will allow him or her to create the most power. Now, as you suggest, as long as the weight is close to the optimal value, small changes in weight probably don't make much difference, provided the weight change doesn't throw off the breaker's stroke or timing very much.

Regards,
Dave

Jal
01-07-2008, 03:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>..(Speaking of spine, I'd like that guy in the video to know that I would still respect him if he lost (unlike you Artemus), and even if he's never come close to running two balls.)
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> Ouch, that really cut through me like a knife and was just flat out mean. Btw, can you run 2 balls? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>Artemus, that was meant to be a joke, though perhaps poorly worded. I was not saying, or intending to say anyway, that I didn't respect you. It can be be read that way though, and I'm sorry for that. On the other hand, given the flurry of insults from you, I'm not as sorry as I might otherwise be. I do understand that you felt insulted by me early on by that "anecdotal evidence" thing.

You're suspicious of theory, and I'm suspicious of anecdotal reports. We can certainly agree on that.

Jim

SKennedy
01-07-2008, 04:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Some people have fast-twitch muscle fibers that allow them to generate large forces at incredible speed over a short distance with a lighter cue. People with slow-twitch fibers need a longer stroke, but can usually generate more power over a larger distance with a heavier cue. This is what I think anyway, based on my experiences and knowledge with other sports and brief study of biomechanics. I think every individual has an optimum cue weight that will allow him or her to create the most power. Now, as you suggest, as long as the weight is close to the optimal value, small changes in weight probably don't make much difference, provided the weight change doesn't throw off the breaker's stroke or timing very much.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I will certainly agree with you on that. I am more of a fast twitch person (just ask my wife - Ha Ha) and I think I generate more speed with an 18 oz than the 21 oz and produce a better break with the lighter cue. We are all made a little different, hence the various weighted bats and cues. My stroke and timing are just as effective with the heavier cue...just not as much speed....and that speed may be "perceived" speed.

I bet you would do well at biomechanics. I don't know much about it but what little I know is interesting.

Artemus
01-07-2008, 06:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> On the other hand, given the flurry of insults from you, I'm not as sorry as I might otherwise be.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="red"> LMAO. I'm glad to see that you're still proving my "backbone mass theory" to be correct. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
You're suspicious of theory, and I'm suspicious of anecdotal reports. We can certainly agree on that.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="red"> Maybe we should break up and not see each other any more. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

Jal
01-07-2008, 09:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <font color="red"> LMAO. I'm glad to see that you're still proving my "backbone mass theory" to be correct. </font color><hr /></blockquote>If acquiring whatever you mean by "backbone" meant that my reading comprehension would sink to the level you've displayed thus far, then I would definitely have second thoughts about it. And especially if I knew that I would now go around offering a bag of bluster as a substitute for argument, then I would absolutely eschew the "improvemnt".

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
You're suspicious of theory, and I'm suspicious of anecdotal reports. We can certainly agree on that.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="red"> Maybe we should break up and not see each other any more. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>Excellent idea. In that spirit, you're welcome to have the final word, or the next thousand for that matter.

Jim

Artemus
01-08-2008, 06:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
You're suspicious of theory, and I'm suspicious of anecdotal reports. We can certainly agree on that.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

OK Jal, before we finally split for good I'd like to revisit this statement you made in your earlier post.

I'll create a far fetched hypothetical situation and you can respond to it as you see fit, just please choose one or the other and not do a spin or tap dance.

I don't know where you work or what you do, but lets assume your place of employment was sooooo pleased with your work that this scenario was offered to you. The CEO and his young son recently got involved in pool and the passion for the game absolutely swept them off their feet.
The CEO came to learn YOU are involved in pool so he makes an offer to you which is this:

Go to the Viking Cue manufacturing plant fully paid for one month where he's super friends with the CEO there and conduct tests with hundreds of different Viking cues that vary in 1-2 gram increments from 16.0 oz up to 21.5 oz and personally test ALL possible weight possibilities within that weight range for BREAK SPEED, BALL SPREAD, SHOOTING ACCURACY ON LONG STRAIGHT SHOTS, CB SPEED CONTROL, ENGLISH VARIABLES, CUT SHOT ACCURACY, POWER DRAW DISTANCES, FORCE FOLLOW DISTANCES, and EASE OF CONTROL. In addition to doing this YOURSELF, you would have full assistance from 2 other Viking employees who are excellent players in conducting these tests. You would have to keep accurate statistics on the results of each weight group and shot scenario in order to report the results back to him at the end of the month.

<font color="red"> OR </font color>

A special room at your office location with a new GC-V would be set up with any ONE cue of your choice from ANY cuemaker and either his standard shaft or an after market low squirt shaft of your choice. The room would have blackboards on all 4 walls to string out equations, there would be multiple computers with WEI tables, any and all programs or software that you desire, and a virtual pool setup for you to create any scenario that you can come up with for the SAME TESTS involving cue experimentation from the other option.

Which scenario would you choose to conduct these experiments for the CEO?

Jal
01-08-2008, 03:28 PM
The first one, whose results of which I would hardly consider to be anecdotal (tap, spin).

Jim

Artemus
01-08-2008, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> The first one, whose results of which I would hardly consider to be anecdotal (tap, spin).
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

So in other words, it's NOT anecdotal if YOU do it in a controlled fashion. However, IT IS anecdotal if I DO IT and you aren't the one in control. I guess you don't have any respect for me. I would also have to assume that your choice for option #1 was chosen by you because it would have yielded far more valuable accurate information than some garbage theoretical formula that may not even come close to the end result of live testing.

You see Jal, the experiment that I laid out in the first one is EXACTLY what I did in REAL LIFE except that I did it from 17 oz.(not 16) to 21.5 oz. No, I didn't go to the Viking plant and have hundreds of cues available, but I have over 60 weight bolts, many differently weighted shafts, and weighted rubber bumpers which got it from 17 oz. in 1-2 gram increments all the way up to 21.5 oz. I THINK I learned and know something from it. (NO tap, spin, lies or bull \$hit) Now, tell your CEO to give me a raise!

Jal
01-08-2008, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> The first one, whose results of which I would hardly consider to be anecdotal (tap, spin).
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

So in other words, it's NOT anecdotal if YOU do it in a controlled fashion. However, IT IS anecdotal if I DO IT and you aren't the one in control. I guess you don't have any respect for me.

You see Jal, the experiment that I laid out in the first one is EXACTLY what I did in REAL LIFE except that I did it from 17 oz.(not 16) to 21.5 oz. No, I didn't go to the Viking plant and have hundreds of cues available, but I have over 60 weight bolts, many differently weighted shafts, and weighted rubber bumpers which got it from 17 oz. in 1-2 gram increments all the way up to 21.5 oz. I THINK I learned and know something from it. (NO tap, spin, lies or bull \$hit) Now, tell your boss to give me a raise! <hr /></blockquote>You've latched on to that one term I used, "anecdotal", as if I had commited a crime. At the time, I had no idea as to the nature or amount of testing you had done; I'm not a mind reader. But instead of describing your efforts, you went on an harangue about "theory" and "equations" and us "elitists", etc.

I don't trust anybody's results if they don't jive with theory, and I don't trust theory if it doesn't jive with the results. It's a give-and-take and both are questionable when they don't agree with each other. (Physics itself isn't questionable, but how one applies it to a particular problem could very well be wrong.)

Two examples.

Technically knowledgeable people have tested low squirt cues for the amount of squirt they produce for some time now, and we've seen numbers that vary by almost a factor of four! Predator apparently underestimates the effectiveness of their own products rather severely if you believe some of the results. I've tested my own cue, and if I were to belive my own numbers, it's as good or better than a Predator, even though it has just an ordinary (though slightly thin, 12mm) shaft.

The other example is a shot that I've practiced quite a bit. It's where you have a straight-in to a side pocket, say, and need to get the cueball to an end cushion, or thereabouts. I thought that using throw to gain an angle was an important ingredient (in addition to cheating the pocket), and played it as such, over and over. However, since coming to understand the physics (I think), I've come to realize that it isn't so.

The upshot is that I don't trust your results, mine, or anybody else's unless there's sufficient consensus between what people have observed, and hopefully, theory (though in many cases the theory may be too difficult to work out).

In brief, there was nothing personal about it. At this point though, I'll have to admit that I wouldn't mind seeing you test another theory about what can be done with a cue.

Jim

Artemus
01-08-2008, 05:35 PM
I think I'll just leave everything you wrote as is and not even respond because it was such a BEAUTIFUL tap-dance and spin on everything and SOOOOO entertaining that I want to be able to read it again for a little pleasure.

I would be honored to test another theory about what can be done with a cue. My thinking is to experiment with
WD-40, vaseline, mineral oil, and dry. When can we meet?

I just talked with the corporate retationship counselor and she stated that we have NO future together. It more than likely is going turn into something else.

Regards,
Ike Turner