Low-Deflection Discussion? in 1910

[Mr. Bond]

From Bailey's Magazine March 1910
link

 

[victorl]

Very interesting article, thanks for posting.

It looks like he's talking about carom billiards, and recommending an extremely stiff shaft (oh the jokes) with no give, so I doubt he's considering the deflection properties of the cue.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Shaft deflection, not CB deflection.

pj
chgo

 

[Mr. Bond]

Shaft deflection, not CB deflection.

pj
chgo

High deflection discussion circa 1910?

 

[Mr. Bond]

Prior to 1948?

..Until that time, most of the public hypothesizing about squirt was around stuff like taper and stiffness.

 

[Drop The Rock]

High deflection discussion circa 1910?

There has been a lot of studying as to whether stiffness relates to deflection and the consensus is that it does not.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Shaft deflection, not CB deflection.

pj
chgo

Mr. Bond:
High deflection discussion circa 1910?

Looks to me like shaft deflection is being discussed. Do you think they were linking it (mistakenly) to CB deflection?

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyInCali]

Looks like shaft flex talk to me.

 

[galipeau]

Awesome article... some of the info is a bit out of date though

I love the advice on tipping and squaring the end of the ferrule...

 

[9Ballr]

Just get a solid maple shaft, learn it and never look back.

Then none of this stuff will matter.

And when these LD makers start coming out with "better and better" products every few years you won't have to be sucked into buying yet another 250 dollar shaft and have to relearn the new and improved shaft with 13% less deflection etc.

YOU can keep getting better and better with your solid maple shaft,,,,,not the shaft getting better and better......

Solid maple once, and never look back.

Problem solved.

Just my thoughts on the whole LD scam. Yes, I called it scam.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Looks to me like shaft deflection is being discussed. Do you think they were linking it (mistakenly) to CB deflection?

pj
chgo

Shaft deflection (ie flexibility) is really the only thing addressed directly, well that and taper, balance point etc. My question is why is the flex addressed so adamantly at all?

If, in theory, a thinner more flexible wooden shaft has less end mass than a thicker, heavier, and consequently stiffer shaft, why would the stiffer shaft be desirable, when it could, in theory, squirt more?

I suppose it's all too hypothetical to matter really. Just curious.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Shaft deflection (ie flexibility) is really the only thing addressed directly, well that and taper, balance point etc. My question is why is the flex addressed so adamantly at all?

If, in theory, a thinner more flexible wooden shaft has less end mass than a thicker, heavier, and consequently stiffer shaft, why would the stiffer shaft be desirable, when it could, in theory, squirt more?

I suppose it's all too hypothetical to matter really. Just curious.

I wonder the same thing. It doesn't sound like squirt is the topic, so what other reason was there to be so against flexible shafts?

pj
chgo