Low deflection / Low squirt shaft comparison

dr_dave said:
Excellent illustration PJ! FYI, I've added it (with a link) to the squerve/squirve resource page.

For those interested, all important squirt, swerve, and squerve/squirve effects are documented with supporting resources and demonstrations on the squirt, swerve, and throw effects resource page.

I already had your other excellent image on the cue natural pivot length resource page.

Good work,
Dave
Click to expand...
LOL at the two spellings. I started the "squirve" spelling when the term was first used and JoeyA (I think) started the "squerve" spelling. Obviously it doesn't matter which way we spell it, but I keep spelling it my way just to poke Joey.

:poke:

pj <- obviously we need a poll
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
LOL at the two spellings. I started the "squirve" spelling when the term was first used and JoeyA (I think) started the "squerve" spelling. Obviously it doesn't matter which way we spell it, but I keep spelling it my way just to poke Joey.
Click to expand...
I also starting using "squerve" (SQUirt + swERVE) many years ago; and when I published articles about this stuff in BD (e.g., "Squirt - Part VIII: squerve effects" - BD, March, 2008), I used "squerve."

Historically, the official usage of terms is based on what is published, not based on what silly people (e.g., you) might be using on a silly Internet Forum. :grin-square:

Get over it, and start using "squerve" (or "net CB deflection" or "effective CB deflection" or "the combined effects of squirt and swerve").:angry: :grin:

Catch you later,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I also starting using "squerve" (SQUirt + swERVE) many years ago; and when I published articles about this stuff in BD (e.g., "Squirt - Part VIII: squerve effects" - BD, March, 2008), I used "squerve."

Historically, the official usage of terms is based on what is published, not based on what silly people (e.g., you) might be using on a silly Internet Forum. :grin-square:

Get over it, and start using "squerve" (or "net CB deflection" or "effective CB deflection" or "the combined effects of squirt and swerve").:angry: :grin:

Catch you later,
Dave
Click to expand...
To be truthful (for a change), I think squerve is probably the better spelling, because it emphasizes swerve more and I think swerve is the more troublesome effect.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
To be truthful (for a change), I think squerve is probably the better spelling, because it emphasizes swerve more and I think swerve is the more troublesome effect.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%; although, "net CB deflection" is probably more meaningful to most people.

Regards,
Dave
 
Eagleshot said:
Scale # - Brand - Model - pivot point"

2.5 - OB - Pro + - ?
3.0 - Predator - Z2 - 14
3.4 - Jacoby - Hybrid Edge - 12.75
3.5 - Predator - 314-2 - 12.5
3.5 - Mezz - WD700 - 12.5
3.7 - Players - HXT (reg. not skinny) - 11.5
6.0 - Tiger - Ultra X LD - 8
8.0 - Prather - 13mm reg. shaft - 7

I am well aware of the fact that I may have just wasted a half hour but I feel this could be very helpful if done correctly.
Click to expand...

I like the concept. However, I don't agree with your ratings at all. Of the ones I've tried (and I have played for long periods with 314-2 and OB Pro+), here is how I think they stack up:

8.0 - standard maple shaft (hugely variable, but lets say the average)
5.0 - Mezz WD700
4.5 - Jacoby Hybrid Edge
2.5 - OB Pro +
2.3 - Predator314-2
1.5 - Predator Z2


My basic point is this. OB and Predator are very low deflection. Tiger, Jacoby, Mezz, and a few others are "kinda low deflection". The Z2 is WAY lower deflection than any other production shaft I have tried. The OB2+ is close though. Next the 314-2 and OB Pro+ and OB1 are all in the same neighborhood. The OB1+ may be a hair lower than the 314-2...they are very close it is tough to tell. It is a pretty big jump up to the next group of shafts. When I play with these different shafts, it seems pretty obvious which ones deflect more or less than others. There are also standardized things you can do to compare. Its weird how different people perceive this so differently!

KMRUNOUT
 
Cornerman said:
And the OB 2+ might even be lower, but I didn't hit with it.

Why wouldn't we just use pivot points?
Click to expand...

Freddie...the OB2+ is ridiculously low, and clearly lower than the Pro +. I have been playing with the Pro + and LOVE it. I think it is very close to a 314-2. I can pretty much go back and forth with no adjustment. I kinda feel like the 314-2 might have less deflection when I hit the ball hard. Don't know if it would really work that way, but that is what it feels like.

KMRUNOUT
 
9Ballr said:
Considering the fact that you always have to compensate anyway even if you have an LD shaft I don't see the point in them......
Click to expand...

The point is that compensating much less is *more accurate* than compensating a lot. Having the ball go closer to where you aim it is an obvious benefit. If this sentence on its own doesn't make sense to you, then I doubt any further elaboration will make it any more clear.

KMRUNOUT
 
Without a robot doing the testing on lots of samples, I won't trust any of the subjective ratings very much.
Even the "same" cue by the same maker will have a range of variation. Some standard deviations will be larger than others.
 
Shaft said:
Without a robot doing the testing on lots of samples, I won't trust any of the subjective ratings very much.
Even the "same" cue by the same maker will have a range of variation. Some standard deviations will be larger than others.
Click to expand...

This is true. It's all just opinions by individuals.

It's like when a pro golfer breaks a graphite shaft it a driver. They replace it with an 'identical' shaft but's it's not the same club as before the broken shaft. Close? Yes, but not the same.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick
 
KMRUNOUT said:
I like the concept. However, I don't agree with your ratings at all.


My basic point is this. OB and Predator are very low deflection. Tiger, Jacoby, Mezz, and a few others are "kinda low deflection". The Z2 is WAY lower deflection than any other production shaft I have tried. The OB2+ is close though. Next the 314-2 and OB Pro+ and OB1 are all in the same neighborhood. The OB1+ may be a hair lower than the 314-2...they are very close it is tough to tell. It is a pretty big jump up to the next group of shafts. When I play with these different shafts, it seems pretty obvious which ones deflect more or less than others. There are also standardized things you can do to compare. Its weird how different people perceive this so differently!

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

No problem. The more input we have the closer to accurate the analysis will be.

Please include your pivot points on various shafts and we can update the list.

I think it's difficult to say that Tiger, Jacoby, Mezz and a few others are "kind of low deflection." This is the inspiration for this thread. There will be many opinions, and the more input we get - the more useful this thread becomes.
 
WOW! I think you just agreed with C J WILEY!!! :lmao:

Patrick Johnson said:
To be truthful (for a change), I think squerve is probably the better spelling, because it emphasizes swerve more and I think swerve is the more troublesome effect.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
 
That's is really cold on your part Dave. Patrick supports you in just about everything you write about. I think I may have to report your ad hominem attack to the moderators.

JoeyA


dr_dave said:
I also starting using "squerve" (SQUirt + swERVE) many years ago; and when I published articles about this stuff in BD (e.g., "Squirt - Part VIII: squerve effects" - BD, March, 2008), I used "squerve."

Historically, the official usage of terms is based on what is published, not based on what silly people (e.g., you) might be using on a silly Internet Forum. :grin-square:

Get over it, and start using "squerve" (or "net CB deflection" or "effective CB deflection" or "the combined effects of squirt and swerve").:angry: :grin:

Catch you later,
Dave
Click to expand...
 
KMRUNOUT said:
The point is that compensating much less is *more accurate* than compensating a lot. Having the ball go closer to where you aim it is an obvious benefit. If this sentence on its own doesn't make sense to you, then I doubt any further elaboration will make it any more clear.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...
I'm always surprised when this simple principle isn't obvious. The amount of aim correction for squirt is estimated - a small distance can be estimated more accurately than a large one. An extreme example: you might estimate the length of a car to within a foot, but you could probably estimate the length of a cigarette to within an inch or less.

That doesn't mean low squirt shafts are for everybody (for instance, BHE users), but they do make that estimation easier.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I'm always surprised when this simple principle isn't obvious. The amount of aim correction for squirt is estimated - a small distance can be estimated more accurately than a large one. An extreme example: you might estimate the length of a car to within a foot, but you could probably estimate the length of a cigarette to within an inch or less.

That doesn't mean low squirt shafts are for everybody (for instance, BHE users), but they do make that estimation easier.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Agreed and well said. However, I will point out that I often use BHE on shots that require a lot of stroke at a distance. Even with my LD shafts, it works awesome! Of course, I'm tall and have a pretty long bridge, so that helps make the LD shafts work for this purpose I think.

I'm curious...is there an objective way to determine the pivot point of a shaft? I mean, it sure does seem like the length of the pivot point is inversely proportional to the amount of squirt. I thought someone had posted a bunch of data on LD shafts and the Z2 had like a 21" pivot point. I could be remembering wrong. My bridge is typically about 12 inches I'd say. This seems to work great for my OB Pro + and even my 314-2 shafts.

KMRUNOUT
 
JoeyA said:
dr_dave said:
Patrick Johnson said:
LOL at the two spellings. I started the "squirve" spelling when the term was first used and JoeyA (I think) started the "squerve" spelling. Obviously it doesn't matter which way we spell it, but I keep spelling it my way just to poke Joey.
Click to expand...
I also starting using "squerve" (SQUirt + swERVE) many years ago; and when I published articles about this stuff in BD (e.g., "Squirt - Part VIII: squerve effects" - BD, March, 2008), I used "squerve."

Historically, the official usage of terms is based on what is published, not based on what silly people (e.g., you) might be using on a silly Internet Forum. :grin-square:

Get over it, and start using "squerve" (or "net CB deflection" or "effective CB deflection" or "the combined effects of squirt and swerve").:angry: :grin:
Click to expand...
That's is really cold on your part Dave. Patrick supports you in just about everything you write about. I think I may have to report your ad hominem attack to the moderators.
Click to expand...
It's important to put those NaySayers and Science Guys in their place periodically. :grin-square:

Best regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top