Do some shafts produce more spin draw and follow

[336Robin]

In this regard

I went to using Elkmaster on my favorite cue and Ive noticed as the tip get compacted way down I don't seem to get the same response from it as when it was new. When new I could sling and throw shots in one pocket that made me fall in love with an Elkmaster.

I am a believer in certain cues that just seem to have weight, modulation, and hit solid enough where they have absolutely no issue with giving you what you expect. Over time anyone can develop a rapport with any cue, making it as predictable and useful as one would have it be.

Some gravitate toward a shaft that is whippy and bends a bit. For which, I have found that a softer tip is much better. Then there are the stiff hitting shafts like the predator Z's and OB Classics that I like so much. I use medium-hard to hard tips on them and experience the joy that comes with having a healthy stroke and a solid hit. Sure it makes a difference regarding shaft type and tip hardness. Has always made a difference.

Regards,

Lesh

 

[ENGLISH!]

The cue that Deanoc refers to was the most unbelievable cue in the world. I have played
with hundreds of cues over the years, and drawing my ball was never a problem. Some
were a little better some quite a bit better drawing. Deanoc had this sneaky pete with a
crack in the handle and said try his thing you won't believe it. He was right, nothing
even comes close to that cue drawing the ball, it seemed as if was defying the laws
of physics. I took it over to a GC and played a little with it it was super LD. Hard to
play with you could not get far off center. Had a long taper a little under 13mm
but nothing I had't seen before. I called Josey and asked about it. He said it had
a ferrule made from a cue ball. I ordered one. It came and was no different than
any other. This cue is in the Glen collection I would love to see someone that really
knows what the are doing do tests on it. This was not just a good drawing cue,
many people tried it players, top cue makers, and everyone's mouth fell open when
they hit a ball or saw it draw. It is mystery.
jack

When Bob Meucci was doing & videoing the 'robot' tests for his black dot shaft, he put a stock Adam Balabushka made by Helmstetter on & was quite shocked how well it hit & did not squirt the CB. His immediate comment was that is must be a very well made Butt, as he knew that it could not be the result of the stock shaft.

It also hit the best with the black dot shaft, but since it hit so well with the stock shaft it had the least amount of improvement with the black dot.

I think that was where his power piston butts where conceived.

The power piston butts have 'flex' built into them & with a recoil time in mind.

Think about that crack in the handle.

I have a predator 314 CAT shaft that has been juiced, sanded down to 12mm at the tip but less at the pivot point of the cue & with a very long 'pro' taper. It vibrates like the old Meuccis.

I can not us that shaft with combination english on full 9 ft. table shots because it will swerve back across the line & my 45+ years of experience would just not let me get use to that.

I love it on 1/2 to 2/3 of the table though.

Just some food for possible thought.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I went to using Elkmaster on my favorite cue and Ive noticed as the tip get compacted way down I don't seem to get the same response from it as when it was new. When new I could sling and throw shots in one pocket that made me fall in love with an Elkmaster.

I used Elk Master & Blue Diamonds by Brunswick (may actually be the same tip) for more than 40 years.

For the last few years I've used Kamui SS Balcks & am trying a G2.

the G2 hits well bu sounds hard & I don't think I want that.

I like the Kamuis But i'm thinking about going bacl the Elk Masters.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[dr_dave]

When Bob Meucci was doing & videoing the 'robot' tests for his black dot shaft, he put a stock Adam Balabushka made by Helmstetter on & was quite shocked how well it hit & did not squirt the CB. His immediate comment was that is must be a very well made Butt, as he knew that it could not be the result of the stock shaft.

FYI, several logical explanations for this are described in the numbered list on the robot squirt testing resource page. Meucci's testing procedures violated pretty much every Rule of Deflection Testing, so many misleading results are possible.

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[ENGLISH!]

Of Bobby Jones's hickory shafted iron 'set', he 'hated' his 7 iron.

When computerized frequency testing came along, they tested his set & all but the 7 iron were very close but the 7 iron was way off.

Two golf clubs can be built today that are virtually 'identical' but they will not hit the same in the hands of a golf professional.

Same thing for tennis rackets. You ever see a pro break a string & then go to get another racket & hit the strings of one racket with head of another racket?

They are testing the strings to see which is the most close to the one that just broke. They certainly do NOT get them strung at different tensions...

but no two are "exactly" the same.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Will a cheap maple loaded with weights hit as good as a heavy stiff maple?

 

[Drawback]

I don't have a moment's problem drawing the CB with any of my Meucci shafts and I have lots of them and lots of different tips installed. My favorite shaft is the UW turned down to 10.79mm with an Ultra Skin soft. Every one of my BDs will draw a ball full table.

I think the key to it all is the follow through.:smile:

 

[SUPERSTAR]

On the same cue, the harder the tip, the easier it is to draw.
The softer the tip, the harder it is.

Don't believe me?

Stick a rock hard petrified piece of leather on your shaft, and draw the ball however you do with a normal stroke.
Cut that off.

Now stick the softest, fluffiest, marshmallow looking puff cloud leather tip on top of your shaft, (triangle of elk master only, none of that layered crap) and draw the ball again with the same stroke.

You will see.

 

[ENGLISH!]

FYI, several logical explanations for this are described in the numbered list on the robot squirt testing resource page. Meucci's testing procedures violated pretty much every Rule of Deflection Testing, so many misleading results are possible.

Enjoy,
Dave

And just maybe the differently made butt yielded different results & that is why the guy that just recently posted said that he 'hates' the Ultra Piston cue that he recently got because he hates the vibration.

Why did that butt hit best with both the stock shaft & the Black Dot Shaft only moments apart compared to others?

That butt had the least & very small variances between the two shafts while others had 'huge' differences?

Those huge differences indicate that the the shaft was the difference.

Not the case with the Adam Butt made by Richard Helmstetter of Calloway Golf 'fame'.

Mr Meucci did not & does not sell Adam Cues made by Helmstetter.

Why where the original George Balabushka cues so treasured by players in the day?

Because they looked good?

Yes, there MIGHT be other answers... but they are not obvious.

Each individual can make their own determination, as they should, & perhaps based on personal experience like the guy that posted about hating the vibration of the Ultra Piston.

Please consider the questions rhetorical.

Regards,
Rick

 

[Patrick Johnson]

On the same cue, the harder the tip, the easier it is to draw. The softer the tip, the harder it is.

This is true for straight draw and follow shots, because they're determined by CB RPMs (harder tips transmit more power = more RPMs).

But draw and follow on cut shots is more complicated - often you want the steepest draw/follow angle, not the most draw/follow distance. That's usually accomplished with a softer stroke, and in those cases any tip that's well groomed and chalked works as well as any other.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

[snip the usual baseless contrary daydreaming]

Did you even look at the stuff on Dave's page? Do you have any idea why he draws his conclusions?

Do you have even a rough theory for why things might be different, other than "anything's possible"? If so, let's hear it.

Otherwise, you're arguing against Dave's good science with nothing but idle contrary conjecture, and probably misleading more than helping anybody.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

On the same cue, the harder the tip, the easier it is to draw.
The softer the tip, the harder it is.

Don't believe me?

Stick a rock hard petrified piece of leather on your shaft, and draw the ball however you do with a normal stroke.
Cut that off.

Now stick the softest, fluffiest, marshmallow looking puff cloud leather tip on top of your shaft, (triangle of elk master only, none of that layered crap) and draw the ball again with the same stroke.

You will see.

That may be the case for YOU.

Personally, I think that depends on the method being used.

It's much like golf balls & tennis strings & the power being applied.

Ladies golf balls were 80 compression while Pro men hit 100 compression.

Tennis rackets are strung 'soft' for weak players to employ a trampoline effect. Strong players use 'hard' tight strings.

About a decade ago driver heads were being made of the hardest metal so that there would be no give & the golf ball would be compressed as much as possible.

Now they are being made with malleable Soft Metal at the perimeter of the head to get that trampoline effect.

The same with golf shaft flex. Softer for ladies & extra stiff, 'hard' for male Pros.

I know you will probably say BUT... those things are not pool & not spinning a cue ball.

And you would be correct.

I've been playing with english & spinning the ball for nearly 5 decades while using soft Elk Master tips & could draw the ball 2 table lengths on the old slow cloth when needed or sometimes when I made a mistake & over did it.

So... Like I said, personally, I think it depends on some other factors relating to how one does it.

I'm sure you can draw the hell out of it with the hard tips but I personally did not like them for other reasons.

But... that was back then. Now days with high tech things are a bit different.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Did you even look at the stuff on Dave's page? Do you have any idea why he draws his conclusions?

Do you have even a rough theory for why things might be different, other than "anything's possible"? If so, let's hear it.

Otherwise, you're arguing against Dave's good science with nothing but idle contrary conjecture, and probably misleading more than helping anybody.

pj
chgo

Did you read what I said about the guy in the hall that puts his shaft on a different butt & gets a difference & 99.9% of them not caring about the specific what & why but only in the difference?

I am NOT arguing against any of "Dave's good science", but I was not aware that general science belongs to anyone, that is unless you are referring to Dave's studies as science, in that strict definition context & sense.

Can you answer the rhetorical questions that I asked?

Are you & Dr. Dave calling Bob Meucci dishonest?

I know & understand the things that Dave attributes the possible reasons for the differences.

I also know that NOT enough Strict Scientific Testing & Study has been done because there is no monetary incentive to do so.

Therefore some things can NOT legitimately be ruled out.

Like I said construction of Golf Driver Heads has dramatically changed in just about 10 years & based on two totally different scientific principals.

The reason is because there is MONEY there.

I have an Adam Balabushka made by Helmstetter that I got & decided on before ever seeing the Meucci tests & I've hit with an Ultra Piston.

I also have built golf clubs & know a bit about shaft flex & torque & the different combinations & the effects that they can have on both feel & performance.

Do you need me to interpret any of that for you?

Do you like me any less now? Do you not yet know that kicking me is usually NOT a good thing to do.

So let me ask you as you asked me... do you now everything that there is to know about ALL of the different types & make ups of cue Butts & the differences in how differently made cues respond & perform between the hand & the collision with the cue ball?

Or do you just think that that they are ALL just a solid pieces of wood or graphite or fiberglass or aluminum?

If so, Please enlighten us?

Sorry, but you kicked first.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

That may be the case for YOU.

Personally, I think that depends on the method being used.

It's much like golf balls & tennis strings & the power being applied.

Ladies golf balls were 80 compression while Pro men hit 100 compression.

Tennis rackets are strung 'soft' for weak players to employ a trampoline effect. Strong players use 'hard' tight strings.

About a decade ago driver heads were being made of the hardest metal so that there would be no give & the golf ball would be compressed as much as possible.

Now they are being made with malleable Soft Metal at the perimeter of the head to get that trampoline effect.

The same with golf shaft flex. Softer for ladies & extra stiff, 'hard' for male Pros.

I know you will probably say BUT... those things are not pool & not spinning a cue ball.

And you would be correct.

I've been playing with english & spinning the ball for nearly 5 decades while using soft Elk Master tips & could draw the ball 2 table lengths on the old slow cloth when needed or sometimes when I made a mistake & over did it.

So... Like I said, personally, I think it depends on some other factors relating to how one does it.

I'm sure you can draw the hell out of it with the hard tips but I personally did not like them for other reasons.

But... that was back then. Now days with high tech things are a bit different.

Best Wishes.

What is different is our understanding. Facts don't change from person to person. If hard tips produce more RPM's, then this is either true for everyone or true for no one. How you are personally able to employ this fact in your own game may vary, most likely for reasons of comfort, bias, etc...which may result in you stroking differently. Regardless of your results, the physics don't change.

KMRUNOUT

 

[ENGLISH!]

What is different is our understanding. Facts don't change from person to person. If hard tips produce more RPM's, then this is either true for everyone or true for no one. How you are personally able to employ this fact in your own game may vary, most likely for reasons of comfort, bias, etc...which may result in you stroking differently. Regardless of your results, the physics don't change.

KMRUNOUT

Agreed, Physics does not change but many times all is not equal & comparisons some make are at times inappropriate.

In differences there are at times trade offs.

I have 3 years of physics education, 2 H.S. & 1 college.

I stared playing at 13 & using english within weeks. I took my 1st. physics class 2 years later.

I don't know your background or on what you base your information.

A weaker female golfer does not have the club head speed to compress a 100 compression golf ball as much as she does an 80 compression golf ball.

A soft balata natural rubber covered golf ball is not the same as a harder synthetic polymer (plastic) covered golf ball.

An 80 compression soft balata rubber covered golf ball & a 100 compression hard plastic polymer covered golf ball do not stay on the face of a golf club the same amount of time for the exact same swing (force) & they do not spin the same either.

As I have said, there has not been enough strict extensive scientific testing & study because there is no monetary incentive to do so as there has been & is for golf.

You believe or know what you will. Do you want to measure the actual spin or the actual affect of the spin? We do not play in an 'endless' universe. We play on the confines of a rather small playing surface & TIME can be very very important as is Speed or the Lack of Speed.

Best Wishes.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I have 3 years of physics education, 2 H.S. & 1 college.

Of more use than your bona fides would be the actual physics equations you used to come to your conclusions.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

But draw and follow on cut shots is more complicated - often you want the steepest draw/follow angle, not the most draw/follow distance. That's usually accomplished with a softer stroke, and in those cases any tip that's well groomed and chalked works as well as any other.

pj
chgo

I hear ya.
But I'm not talking about that.
I'm just talking about the OP and what is gonna draw the ball straight back as far as possible.

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, several logical explanations for this are described in the numbered list on the robot squirt testing resource page. Meucci's testing procedures violated pretty much every Rule of Deflection Testing, so many misleading results are possible.

... Are you & Dr. Dave calling Bob Meucci dishonest?

... not necessarily. He might just be unaware of the many possible sources of error and misleading results associated with his testing procedures.

Also, when a cue manufacturer and marketer performs their own testing with their own equipment to attempt to make their cues look better than others, results must always be taken with a "grain of salt."

Regards,
Dave

 

[ENGLISH!]

Of more use than your bona fides would be the actual physics equations you used to come to your conclusions.

Thank you kindly.

How about you state yours that contradict my proposals?

Your post is rather odd & I have an idea why that might be.

 

[ENGLISH!]

... not necessarily. He might just be unaware of the many possible sources of error and misleading results associated with his testing procedures.

Also, when a cue manufacturer and marketer performs their own testing with their own equipment to make their cues look better than others, results must always be taken with a "grain of salt."

Regards,
Dave

Agreed, Dave.

but the ADAM BALABUSHKA cue built by RICHARD HELMSTETTER of Calloway Golf 'Fame'...

was NOT manufactured by Bob Muecci.

It was NOT one of HIS cues.