clash royale hack
HomeAbout Billiards DigestContact UsArchiveAll About PoolEquipmentOur AdvertisersLinks
Tips & shafts
By George Fels
Consulting Editor George Fels has been writing for Billiards Digest since 1980, and his "Tips & Shafts" column is usually our readers' first stop when they crack open the magazine. For better or worse, pool has been his only mistress for 40-plus years.

• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• June 2020
• April 2020
• March 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• July 2019
• June 2019
• May 2019
• April 2019
• March 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• July 2018
• July 2018
• June 2018
• May 2018
• April 2018
• March 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• November 2017
• October 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• July 2017
• June 2017
• May 2017
• April 2017
• March 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• Apr 2016
• Mar 2016
• Feb 2016
• Jan 2016
• December 2015
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• July 2015
• June 2015
• May 2015
• April 2015
• March 2015
• February 2015
• January 2015
• October 2014
• August 2014
• May 2014
• March 2014
• February 2014
• September 2013
• June 2013
• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• February 2013
• January 2013
• December 2012
• November 2012
• October 2012
• September 2012
• August 2012
• June 2012
• May 2012
• April 2012
• March 2012
• February 2012
• January 2012
• December 2011
• November 2011
• October 2011
• September 2011
• August 2011
• July 2011
• June 2011
• May 2011
• April 2011
• March 2011
• February 2011
• January 2011
• December 2010
• November 2010
• October 2010
• September 2010
• August 2010
• July 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008

Best of Fels
July: Indians & Arrows
July 2012
THE PLACEBO effect." In medicine, in its simplest form, it's a doctor prescribing a sugar pill to a hypochondriac, and the patient then gets better simply because s/he thinks that's what's supposed to happen. In the cue games, it's more complex than that, but it frequently comes down to a player's deciding that a given new cue is going to transform him or her competitively.

In my first poolroom, the only guy who had his own cue was 72 years old and played caroms exclusively. Even the best billiards players, one of whom finished third nationally once, were at the mercy of what stood in the cue racks on the wall (there weren't any decent pool players, least of all me). My personal favorite was 18 ounces - it said so - and had no rubber bumper on the end. I used to put that sucker back in the exact same place each time and hope no one else would notice, despairing in anxiety when it was missing, rejoicing in confidence when we were reunited, not unlike a one-way love affair. The house inventory of cues at the Morse Avenue Recreational Center was often rainbow-shaped, sometimes without tips, sometimes without so much as a ferrule, but we still returned daily to clutch them to our hands and hearts.

I can't honestly say I remember my first two-piece cue, but it was probably ordered out of the Brunswick catalog and it couldn't have cost much; even the great Herman Rambow (and I wouldn't connect with him personally for years) was barely charging $30 for his finest two-piece cue with modest inlay work (usually little ivory dots, or, as they were called then, sites) plus two shafts. As I recall, I got that cue when I was in college; it was four-pronged but without veneers; it survived my wretched temper for maybe three days.

Now there's certainly little debate that a personal cue does figure to improve its owner as a player, especially when that player has never had one before. What's slightly less certain is exactly why, although the answer probably begins with confidence. The two-piece cue will surely be straighter than its house cousin; equally important, it will just as surely have a better tip; it will be better made in general. And even better than that, it will (or should) help the player feel the hit for what is probably the very first time. I've known players who never outgrew their first cues, most likely for that reason alone - but I haven't known many. Most are in an unending search, as though a lone piece of wood were some sort of Holy Grail.

Exactly what that hit does feel like is about as subjective a matter as exists in sports; it's nothing that words can readily be put to, no matter who the writer is. Just about 40 years ago, a Sports Illustrated article introduced the sporting world at large to the brilliant Ernie Gutierrez (of Ginacues). While the piece largely dealt with his furnishing cues to celebrities such as the late Dean Martin and Telly Savalas, the great player Richie Florence was quoted too: "In a cue by Ernie, the balance is always mellow." No offense to the late Florence, but would anyone care to explain exactly what that means? To this day, the only three words I've ever heard to describe the hit of a given cue were "mellow", "solid", and "stiff." I suppose they all work, in a very limited way.

For many years, the given wisdom in choosing a cue was that metal joints do indeed offer a hit that feels different - specifically, less "stiff" - than those of ivory or some synthetic material. The latter seemed to be the province of 9-ball experts; virtually all the great East Coast 14.1 players used cues with stainless steel joints, often from the immortal George Balabushka. Does that make one category of cues superior across-the-board to the other? It clearly does not.

And the period in which that differentiation took place also saw many cuemakers advertising, " hits as solid as a one-piece." If that claim had any truth to it, and the hit of a one-piece cue really represents the all-time ideal, how come we don't see any accomplished pool players using one-piece cues? (Only snooker players do.) It's one of two pool questions the answers to which have eluded me for all my 50-plus years around the game (the other being, "How come black players favor bank pool to the extent they do?"). I certainly invite your opinions.

The other factor worth noting in choosing a new cue is that just about any sensible change in your game will generate short-term improvement. Shorten or lengthen your bridge; play slightly slower or faster; hit the balls a bit harder (or better, softer); chalk your cue with the hand you don't normally use; you figure to be pleased with your results with any of them, and none of them costs anything. When I taught pool at Northwestern (our own Larry Schwartz teaches that course now), I used to point beginners toward The Great Escape, where a perfectly capable two-piece cue in either fiberglass or graphite costs about $40, and those who took my advice were unanimously glad they did.

But you're obviously still free to fantasize about, even pursue, a cue that costs thousands; I know that delicious fantasy all too well. The cue I use now is one I personally designed, and Connecticut's stupendous Paul Drexler made it for me almost exactly 26-1/2 years after I conceived that design. In the interim, I dreamed of running thousands before presidents and royalty, leaving Mizerak and Strickland and Archer and all the rest in my dust: "This is the one that's gonna do it." It didn't.

And it's a fragile dream at that; it only takes eight ancient, politically incorrect words to bring it crashing to earth: "It ain't the arrows, son. It's the Indian."