Maple shafts versus Low deflection shafts.

Every time I hear that Indian/arrow analogy I think of a hungry Indian shooting crooked arrows and a rabbit running away laughing and I just have to smile. It's always been both working together. Personally, I have tried Predator and OB and two of the great cuemaker's select hard maple ferrule-less shafts...and I like the ferruleless the best. Also have wondered why nobody has done any genuine scientific testing on all LDs out there to show some real stats...sorta like Meucci did with robots only genuinely impartial.
:p
 
Every time I hear that Indian/arrow analogy I think of a hungry Indian shooting crooked arrows and a rabbit running away laughing and I just have to smile. It's always been both working together. Personally, I have tried Predator and OB and two of the great cuemaker's select hard maple ferrule-less shafts...and I like the ferruleless the best. Also have wondered why nobody has done any genuine scientific testing on all LDs out there to show some real stats...sorta like Meucci did with robots only genuinely impartial.
:p

What was wrong with Meucci's results?:confused:
 
hard to lump shafts together

A major flaw to considering this question is that all solid maple shafts are lumped together as are all laminated shafts. The quality of solid maple shafts varies greatly as does the quality of laminated shafts.

Both types of shafts have the same possibility of errors in construction too. With a solid shaft a good blank must be selected to begin with and then the cue builder must work with the grain sometimes correcting issues with how the blank was cut. It is sometimes possible to improve the quality of the blank according to how it is turned. A lot of art and skill in making a good solid shaft. Top quality solid shafts are largely a fluke in mass production since there is no way that the amount of time can be invested in creating one that a master builder can put into one.

Laminated shafts are far from equal too. Some do start with far less care in selection of raw materials than others. Also the glue lines largely replace the grain so how the glue lines are oriented and how well the shaft remains true to the centerline of most spliced shafts is very important to the overall quality of the final product. When the splice lines aren't true with the centerline of the shaft it is much like grain run off or run out in a solid shaft. I once had images of various top spliced shaft maker's shafts that clearly revealed that at least those samples were not turned on center. There are other possible issues with some laminated shafts, not all.

The real issue isn't deflection as much as consistent deflection. One way to check for consistency of stiffness from any angle is simply to mount the shaft where it can be turned around and around parallel to the ground. A light weight and a scale or indicator on the end of the shaft gives a measurement. Convert that measurement to a percentage and you have a basis for universal comparison. Tests ran on good maple shafts supposedly gave 3% maximum variance around the circumference of the shaft. I think that it's safe to say that this matters very little for the vast majority of actual shots that come up during a game. The slight warp to almost any shaft, laminated or solid, probably has far more to do with changes in deflection than the measured consistency of stiffness of a shaft with that little of a difference. Orienting a shaft is an old trick on the very tough shots. I'd say that is still a very good idea regardless of the type of shaft you use.

Which shaft type is best? In my opinion it depends more on the individual design of the shaft and the skills of the builder than the type of shaft it is. Basic designs are often flawed, including the "design" of many solid maple blanks. Then there is the very real possibility of construction errors creating solid or laminated shafts. Ultimately the answer is what Joe W did. He tested shafts for himself and found the best of the shafts that he had available, out of that sampling and for his play. Joe might have conducted the same tests with different individual shafts of the same types and gotten different results. There are also the matters of feel, comfort, and confidence. You can throw out all of the numbers when you find a shaft that feels right for you and you have great confidence in. It is the best shaft for you.

Hu
 
not poking fun at your post, i've used that same "indian & arrow" analogy before, but it got me thinking;

i'd rather run into an indian with an arrow than and indian with a gun


Snipped Quote.



Well I think I'd rather run into the one with the gun if he didn't have any bullets.
 
Hey Joe, what was the number of trials in each cell of your experiment?

How did you quantify (on what scale and with what degree of precision) your results?

In your test, did you use your normal aiming adjustment for squirt for the ivory ferrule shafts and a different one or same for the Predator Z2?

Thanks for delving a bit more into your methodology.




I am a proponent of the Predator Z2, If you run your own tests I think the answers are self evident.

Place two balls on the foot rail 2.5 inches apart and centered on a diamond.

Place the cue ball on the same diamond line at the other end of the table.

Warm up by shooting center ball and hitting the foot rail without hitting either object ball.

I compared the two shafts on my $2,500.00 cue stick with ivory ferrules with a long Predator Z2.

My bias at the time was to prefer the original shafts because they keep the cue maker’s work in tact.

Use one to one and one half tips of offset on the cue ball and shoot to hit between the two balls on the foot rail without hitting either ball.

Mark the shafts in four position around the circumference of the shaft and shoot three shots from each mark.

Without going into a long winded discussion of each shaft I was a little disappointed to learn that the Predator shaft produced less deflection. The original shafts had more deflection but the amount of deflection varied from two opposing sides of the shafts to the other two opposing sides.

Based on the results I play with only the Predator Z2. I have placed the original shafts in storage for my grandchildren.

I changed shafts based on the results of my research not on any hype from anyone.
 
Well, I can say this.

3 or 4 years ago we were having dinner at Sullivan's after the Super Billiards Expo. It was Don Owen, my business partner, John Schmidt, myself and another very prominent European player. I won't mention his name as that would not be professional. I will say that he is one of the most known players of all time, much less from that area.

Don asked him this question. "If there was one thing that has made it more difficult for you to make a living as a pro player, what would it be?" His answer was very quick and simple. He said "Low Deflection shafts". His reasoning was that before LD shafts there was only a handful of players in the world that really had a good shot at winning any high level tournament. But now, there are hundreds.

Things are not always as they may seem!

Anecdotal evidence is also just that and very useful for marketing. The market does seem to support your claims though.
 
Can maple shafts perform as well or better than low deflection shafts?
Joey,

I assume you are asking about LD shafts vs. non-LD shafts. Any maple shaft can be made to be LD by using a light (or no) ferrule, by turning the shaft down, and/or by drilling out the end core. For more info, see:

LD shafts have both advantages and disadvantages for different players, as summarized here:

If so, what properties of maple shafts enhance their performance?
See the advantages and disadvantages linked above. Also, the definition of "performance" can be very subjective, as are the definitions of "hit," "feel," and "playability." For more info, see:

Regards,
Dave
 
anyone who says a predator shaft is the best shaft in the world ... must also say that a McDonalds hamburger is the best hamburger in the world...

just sayin

Exactly! ..... Wait, you mean just the regular hamburger or the Big Mac?

Anyway, I don't play much rotation, but I'm perfectly happy with these $50 dollar shafts on ebay. I take off the tip, put on a triangle, and lengthen the taper quite a bit on my Mickey Mouse lathe setup (which works great btw) :), maybe 18 inches at 12.5

I'm no pro by any means, but I have my share of 50s and a few 60s now and then in 14.1 with that mickey mouse shaft. I never did believe in all the hype about high end shafts and big dollar tips though .... :)
 
Dr9Ball
I conducted this study about two years ago and have used the Z2 since then. As I remember there were about six good trials in each cell. By good trials I mean that I felt that I executed the shot as it should have been executed. No head lift, bad swing, etc. Shots that were not included were excluded before contact was made to insure I wasn’t being biased in my results. The results were for my own use (not publication) so I tried to be as honest as I could be.

To assess deflection I actually used a slightly different methodology. The two object balls on the rail were placed one ball’s width off the rail (measured with another ball). When the cue ball hit an object ball I could measure where the OB hit the rail by tracking the ball’s path back to the rail and measuring the offset. Only measurement freaks (like me) :eek:would be interested in such a detailed measuring technique.

I use Joe Tucker’s description of front and back offsets for the cue stick to play all shots with English. Essentially the back of the cue stick is brought to the center line of the cue ball to reduce deflection. I have been using this technique for several years and think that I am reasonably consistent with it. I attempted to use the exact same off set on every shot.

Of course the original shafts are about 13.5 mm ( vs 11.75 for the Predator) and I tried to take this into consideration when cueing and attempted to strike the cue ball the same distance from center with theh center of the cue tip.

There are many variables and many places for confounding to occur. I simply did the best I could. Of importance to me was the idea that if I had any bias it was to have my original shafts come out as the “better” shafts. At first I was disappointed and rechecked my findings about every month or so. I found a consistent difference of about 30 percent in favor of the Predator Z2. Just could not find a reason to switch back – damn it. After about six months I gave up and left the pretty shafts in the closet.

PS all shafts had LePro tips that I installed at the same time. Now I want you to know I am not OCD but I am a serious pool player ! Over time the Predator had more use and I also found that using the same spot on the Predator with label up did not seem to alter its playing charcteristics over time.

Others my not know and it is worth stating, I am a scientist and it can be assumed that I considered randomized trials, positional efects, time of day, etc, etc. This was a serious study for me but not to be published as it would have required several subjects with several differnt cue sticks, tables, etc. The results were useful to me and are suggestive for others to replicate.
 
Last edited:
Here are a few basic facts:
Some people prefer laminated LD shafts, others prefer standard maple shafts.
Some people prefer custom cues, others prefer production cues.
Some people prefer layered tips, others prefer a one-piece tip.
Some people prefer ghostball aiming, others prefer CTE.
Some people like to gamble on pool, others do not.
Some people prefer American-made products, others do not care as much.

Each to his/her friggin' own, for cryin' out loud.

Why is it somebody always has to come on here and try to make someone feel like an idiot for buying/using something they WANT to use? I've heard the "If you ain't playing with a custom cue, then you ain't got squat" or the "If you paid $200 for an LD shaft, then you're a fool" or the "Kamui is the ONLY tip out there worth using. All others are junk" Or the "The (fill in the blank) aiming system is the only REAL aiming system that works". Why don't we hear this: "Why do you drive a Lexus when a Chevrolet will get you there at half the cost?"or this: " I can't believe you would buy a Japanese made electronic device when you can find them made right here in America :rolleyes:" or this: "Why eat at that $50-per-person steakhouse when Saltgrass will do?" Pool ain't no different than other real-life experiences. People do what they wish with their money. Some are frugal, others are extravagant. It's all about freedom of personal choice. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong. It's THEIR money. Let them do what they want to with it if it makes them happy, and WITHOUT criticism please!!!

Maniac
 
Here are a few basic facts:
Some people prefer laminated LD shafts, others prefer standard maple shafts.
Some people prefer custom cues, others prefer production cues.
Some people prefer layered tips, others prefer a one-piece tip.
Some people prefer ghostball aiming, others prefer CTE.
Some people like to gamble on pool, others do not.
Some people prefer American-made products, others do not care as much.

Each to his/her friggin' own, for cryin' out loud.

Why is it somebody always has to come on here and try to make someone feel like an idiot for buying/using something they WANT to use? I've heard the "If you ain't playing with a custom cue, then you ain't got squat" or the "If you paid $200 for an LD shaft, then you're a fool" or the "Kamui is the ONLY tip out there worth using. All others are junk" Or the "The (fill in the blank) aiming system is the only REAL aiming system that works". Why don't we hear this: "Why do you drive a Lexus when a Chevrolet will get you there at half the cost?"or this: " I can't believe you would buy a Japanese made electronic device when you can find them made right here in America :rolleyes:" or this: "Why eat at that $50-per-person steakhouse when Saltgrass will do?" Pool ain't no different than other real-life experiences. People do what they wish with their money. Some are frugal, others are extravagant. It's all about freedom of personal choice. Nobody's right, nobody's wrong. It's THEIR money. Let them do what they want to with it if it makes them happy, and WITHOUT criticism please!!!

Maniac

If you are referring to my post about not believing in the hype about the high dollar shafts and tips, sorry you took offense.

I stated my opinion and I'm not downing anyone for choosing what they choose.

HOWEVER... There are plenty of beginners reading these posts and sucking in all the hype about these shafts and tips believing there is some kind of magic that goes with them. Believing they need this stuff to play well and they go out and spend money they don't have on things they don't need. That, I suppose pisses me off the most.
 
I am not trying to persuade anyone. My findings are merely suggestive and lead to the idea that laminated low deflection shafts may be of some use. I am only stating what I found and think that it may be of use to others as food for thought based on actual trials by someone who knows how to conduct such a study. The results are certainly limited but may be of use to other serious players.
 
Thanks Joe for the details. It sounds like an interesting self study. For me the number of shots per cell seems very low but may have been sufficient for your intentions.
I wonder if we could get a grant to study this with a representative sample of varying skill level players and cues/shafts.

Dr9Ball
I conducted this study about two years ago and have used the Z2 since then. As I remember there were about six good trials in each cell. By good trials I mean that I felt that I executed the shot as it should have been executed. No head lift, bad swing, etc. Shots that were not included were excluded before contact was made to insure I wasn’t being biased in my results. The results were for my own use (not publication) so I tried to be as honest as I could be.

To assess deflection I actually used a slightly different methodology. The two object balls on the rail were placed one ball’s width off the rail (measured with another ball). When the cue ball hit an object ball I could measure where the OB hit the rail by tracking the ball’s path back to the rail and measuring the offset. Only measurement freaks (like me) :eek:would be interested in such a detailed measuring technique.

I use Joe Tucker’s description of front and back offsets for the cue stick to play all shots with English. Essentially the back of the cue stick is brought to the center line of the cue ball to reduce deflection. I have been using this technique for several years and think that I am reasonably consistent with it. I attempted to use the exact same off set on every shot.

Of course the original shafts are about 13.5 mm ( vs 11.75 for the Predator) and I tried to take this into consideration when cueing and attempted to strike the cue ball the same distance from center with theh center of the cue tip.

There are many variables and many places for confounding to occur. I simply did the best I could. Of importance to me was the idea that if I had any bias it was to have my original shafts come out as the “better” shafts. At first I was disappointed and rechecked my findings about every month or so. I found a consistent difference of about 30 percent in favor of the Predator Z2. Just could not find a reason to switch back – damn it. After about six months I gave up and left the pretty shafts in the closet.

PS all shafts had LePro tips that I installed at the same time. Now I want you to know I am not OCD but I am a serious pool player ! Over time the Predator had more use and I also found that using the same spot on the Predator with label up did not seem to alter its playing charcteristics over time.

Others my not know and it is worth stating, I am a scientist and it can be assumed that I considered randomized trials, positional efects, time of day, etc, etc. This was a serious study for me but not to be published as it would have required several subjects with several differnt cue sticks, tables, etc. The results were useful to me and are suggestive for others to replicate.
 
I am a proponent of the Predator Z2, If you run your own tests I think the answers are self evident.

Place two balls on the foot rail 2.5 inches apart and centered on a diamond.

Place the cue ball on the same diamond line at the other end of the table.

Warm up by shooting center ball and hitting the foot rail without hitting either object ball.

I compared the two shafts on my $2,500.00 cue stick with ivory ferrules with a long Predator Z2.

My bias at the time was to prefer the original shafts because they keep the cue maker’s work in tact.

Use one to one and one half tips of offset on the cue ball and shoot to hit between the two balls on the foot rail without hitting either ball.

Mark the shafts in four position around the circumference of the shaft and shoot three shots from each mark.

Without going into a long winded discussion of each shaft I was a little disappointed to learn that the Predator shaft produced less deflection. The original shafts had more deflection but the amount of deflection varied from two opposing sides of the shafts to the other two opposing sides.

Based on the results I play with only the Predator Z2. I have placed the original shafts in storage for my grandchildren.

I changed shafts based on the results of my research not on any hype from anyone.

To be fair 13.5 mm ivory vs a hollow 11.75 mm thermoplastic is not a fair fight.

I play with a solid maple 11.75mm x 10mm ferrule and the deflection is about the same as a 314 only with feel. and any variances around the rotation are so minimal I would never even notice, not that a laminated piece is any more consistent anyway.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it matters whether its solid or Laminated.I've used Both.

With a solid maple shaft its just a case of getting use to the way it plays,It might take a while but once your intune with whatever deflection there is, your as good as anyone using laminated:smile:

I used kenny murral cue for a while with old predator shafts.And that one felt like normal solid maple shaft. I learn't that older predators lose there stiffness over time.So it didn't feel that different.

I tried an ob out, that one is two weird for me.Its almost like you have to change your whole game to get used to them.
 

At first glance this looks pretty good, but look at his stroke on the z-2 compared with all the other shafts. It seems that he turns outward with the z-2 therefore his stroke is compensating for deflection, all the rest of the strokes looks like he's trying to get deflection but the final z-2 shaft stroke he's trying to minimize deflection.

I don't know if he did this on purpose or not but any cue can seem LD if you compensate for deflection lol. Plus the parallel test is bad to use because most people i've seen don't use parallel english when they want sidespin.
 
Back
Top