New low deflection shaft: Meucci Ultimate Weapon

taper looks funky

meucci-ultimate-weapon-shaft.jpg
 
"This shaft has a whopping 150+ per cent less delection"

I believe this means 50% in the opposite direction.

They shoulda stopped when they got to 100% less, IMO.

LOL

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
"This shaft has a whopping 150+ per cent less delection"

I believe this means 50% in the opposite direction.

They shoulda stopped when they got to 100% less, IMO.

LOL

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

"But-but-but Pat, you're taking all the wind out of their marketing sail!"

All funnin' aside, I laugh hysterically at some of these marketing claims. The older I get, the more I laugh at the fact-bending tactics of the "marketing droids." :D

-Sean
 
Patrick Johnson said:
"This shaft has a whopping 150+ per cent less delection"

I believe this means 50% in the opposite direction.

They shoulda stopped when they got to 100% less, IMO.

LOL

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

The advertisement says "This shaft has a whopping 150+ per cent less delection than all other brands, . . ."

Not "reduces deflection 150 percent" huge difference.

Sorry, I'm a big fan of muecci.
 
It takes deflection down to zero and then another 50% into the next dimension for good measure.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What's "150 percent less" than anything?

How is less not a reduction?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I agree. "100% less deflection than other brands" means it has *no* deflection at all; that the deflection displayed in other brands is 100% less -- meaning, the deflection shown in other brands has been completely eliminated. In other words, a 0% deflection shaft as compared to "those other brands."

"150% less deflection than other brands" means that it goes beyond the 100% reduction (elimination) of deflection, and is actually 50% the other way -- meaning the cue ball is *attracted* to the shaft like a magnet just after contact.

I wish the marketing droids would put their thinking caps on, and really read this stuff they put out.

-Sean
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What's "150 percent less" than anything?

How is less not a reduction?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

AT&T TO CUT WORKFORCE 120 PERCENT
May 5, 2009
*Please See Note at Bottom

NEW YORK, N.Y. (SatireWire.com) — AT&T will reduce its workforce by an unprecedented 120 percent by the end of 2001, believed to be the first time a major corporation has laid off more employees than it actually has.

...AT&T plans to achieve the 100 percent internal reduction through layoffs, attrition and early retirement packages. To achieve the 20 percent in external reductions, the company plans to involuntarily downsize 22,000 non-AT&T employees who presently work for other companies.

...

They may be using the same strategy, by taking advantage of the higher deflection of some other sticks. :confused:
 
Don't know why I'm still thinking about this but.....

OK so brand x claims 10% reduction in deflection over whatever, if mine is 25% reduction over the same whatever then I can say mine is 150% less than yours.

Maybe?
 
RRfireblade said:
Don't know why I'm still thinking about this but.....

OK so brand x claims 10% reduction in deflection over whatever, if mine is 25% reduction over the same whatever then I can say mine is 150% less than yours.

Maybe?
Click to expand...

Could be. But let's put it this way: 1.) it's not the initial thought one has when seeing "150% less than other brands" thing; and 2.) the marketing message has already FAILED, if you have to think this deep, or to analyze what "150% less than..." means.

While there's a small window it "could" be technically correct -- depending on how it's spun (which, remember, that's what marketing is all about) -- the "attraction" to the message has already been lost.

In other words, a big FAIL on the part of the Meucci marketing group. But then again, the person who wrote that / published it on the website could be just one of their service people that just so happens to wear the webmaster hat, and has no degree in marketing.

Banks' satirical message about the AT&T layoff is the crux of it all -- it hits the nail on the head.

-Sean
 
Actually I disagree.

I think its probably a perfect marketing spin based on just the bare minimal amount of fact to cover thier a$$.

No one outside of this forum is going to put that much thought into it.

The vast majority of thier market is going to see that ad and be like, 150% reduction ? Can't beat that. Put it in the bag please.

:)
 
a normal maple shaft has 30mm(arbitrary # and measurement, ie example) of deflection.

a predator shaft has a deflection of 27mm(10% reduction in deflection)

a 150% reduction in deflection over the predator shaft would be what class?

a)10mm b)4.5mm c)45mm d)6mm























predator reduces deflection by 3mm.
this shaft reduces deflection by 150% over any other shaft.
equation; 3mm x 1.5(150%)=4.5
this shaft reduces deflection by 4.5mm over the predator shaft
27mm - 4.5mm = 22.5mm
the shaft has a deflection of 22.5mm
a 150% reduction over the predator

talk shit about my game not my stick-however I'll beat you with both. lol:cool:

I love talkin shit even though I can't always back it up.
 
RRfireblade said:
Don't know why I'm still thinking about this but.....

OK so brand x claims 10% reduction in deflection over whatever, if mine is 25% reduction over the same whatever then I can say mine is 150% less than yours.

Maybe?
Click to expand...
The confusion is whether you're measuring the amount of deflection or the amount of reduction. The word "less" in this case refers to the amount of reduction, not to the amount of deflection - and that's why it's wrong. To compare the amount of reduction you need to say "my shaft reduces deflection 150% more than yours reduces it". (And this only makes sense if the original reduction is no more than 40%: 150% more than 40% = 100%.) I assume this is what Meucci really means to say.

If you know how much actual deflection is created (either by the shaft you're comparing to or by the shaft it's compared to), then you can say "my shaft creates x% less deflection", but then the maximum is 100% less.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top