How much does low deflection really matter?

[SpringsF6B]

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents

I've been playing pool for going on 50 years. Some years less than others ( raising kids ) but still a damn long time. In my opinion, it depends on the individual player, their skill level and how they play the game. Everyone's style of play is just a little different.
I currently play in the APA and am a skill level 7/8. I started using 314s when they first came out around 2005 or so. I liked the hit so I continued to use them for he next 10 years. Then I tried a Z2 shaft. For me, I saw a definite improvement. Specifically I was able to make more long shots when using side spin. The shaft made me more accurate.
Over the years I saw several players start using a Z only to get rid of it. Due to the decreased diameter of the tip they were missing shots because of unwanted spin. A larger diameter tip is more forgiving if you accidentally hit a little off center.
I now use a Z3 and have no plans to use anything else. The LD shafts work for me.

 

[Buckzapper]

I play mainly on a Diamond with tight pockets. They're 4 1/4" and if you don't hit the pocket, the ball doesn't go in.
I use a couple LD shafts. Jacoby was always a favorite, but I recently bought a Mezz WX900 which is 12mm and it pockets tough shots from anywhere. It's my favorite for 9 ball.

Playing one pocket, I use a regular Scruggs shaft that has some deflection. Position is very predictable and you can get the cue ball to a certain position without guessing. That's critical in one pocket, as are certain shots that require a good bit of spin. The LD doesn't seem to be able to do it.

 

[couldnthinkof01]

I could be wrong but i have watched several lower players switch to ld shafts.
When they did they became more confident spinning the ball because the compensation for deflection is less. The balls they spin alot, go in more often then they did with plain maple.

I think this is what joey a was getting at.

If you havent noticed this in your local hall in the last 7ish years, i would suggest a shovel because your head is in the sand.

 

[M.G.]

Then you have the fact that many of the players that are considered to be the best alive today, or even the best of all time, were not or are not using low deflection shafts. Efren Reyes, Willie Mosconi, and Shane Van Boening are just a few examples.

S. van Boening does play a LD shaft, the Cuetec R360. It has lower deflection than you'd might think.

Can't seem to care about Willie Mosconi etc.

Real players play Snooker and their shafts have always been very LD.

Cheers!


PS: Not even a single carom player would argue that LD is "not needed" or "not important".

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I had forgotten the R360 was considered low deflection. So substitute in Earl Strickland or Big Ko or Orcullo or any number of other examples in Shane's place for current or all time best players who used standard deflection shafts. And move Shane over as another example and yet more evidence of someone like a Pagulayan who has used both types of shafts and where there is zero evidence that he plays any better because of the low deflection shaft. He plays the same killer high level with either shaft, just like Alex, and just like every other pro that has used both types of shafts for any length of time.

Having hit balls with Earl's cue, I can assure you that it is quite low deflection. IDK what Ko uses. Orcullo used a Tiger LD shaft for quite some time if I'm not mistaken.

I was well aware of that and it is immaterial to the point. The point is that at least as high levels of pool if not higher have been played with standard shafts. If low deflection shafts were inherently better, you would see the top of the charts dominated by low deflection shaft users. You would see the best pool played with low deflection shafts. You don't see any of that. The type of shaft seems to make no difference.

Ok...you don't understand why this is specifically relevant to your point. Got it. Lots of top top players today are playing with LD shafts. However, if you happened to read my other post, you would know that I said that the difference diminishes the higher up the skill level tree you go. That being said, a quick look at the AZ leader board ...let's look at the top 15: SVB, Orcullo, Pagulayan, Ouschan, Shaw, Fisher, Appleton, Morra, Woodward...all play with LD shafts. That's 9/15, and the only reason I didn't say the other 6 was because I don't know what they play with. So um, seems kinda like you most certainly do see the best pool being played, in many cases, with LD shafts. Regardless, I've already said the shaft type is significantly less important at the top tier pro level.

Re-read my post because you clearly didn't read it carefully or take the time to comprehend it the first time. Nowhere did I argue that one should use standard shafts. What I argued was that at the highest levels of play that low deflection shafts clearly are not superior and the type of shaft doesn't seem to make any difference.

I understood your point perfectly. Where I think you are confused is that in understanding your point, I raised objections and disagreed. It was not a comprehension issue.

Again, the point is that the highest levels of pool can be played with standard shafts. That was true back when there were only standard deflection shafts, and that is still true today when there are tons of both and standard deflection shafts still to this day are not being outperformed by low deflection shafts.

The logical error here is in assuming that "how much does low deflection really matter" is answered by looking at the highest level players in the game. It isn't. That is where the difference matters the least. While it appears we agree on this concept, I'm then puzzled why you would have brought up the whole "pool at the highest level" angle.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The aiming errors resulting from poor cueing are reduced in a LD shaft.

This isn't just wrong it is very wrong, especially considering some
beginners might one day read this.

Hmm...ok so you are going to just make that statement out of thin air, and not support it in any way?

Your assessment is incorrect. You believe otherwise. Let me rephrase so my point is clear: If you accidentally hit left or right of your aim point on the cue ball, the magnitude of the resulting error in cueball-object ball contact point will be reduced with LD shafts.

If you think this statement is wrong, tell me why. After all, beginners might one day read this.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

You're right, this is obvious now that I think about it. This answers a big part of the question for me.

We both know that. Glad you get it. As I predicted, lots of people in here that haven't thought it all the way through.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Danimal]

I don't like the golf tech vs. pool tech analogy. For one, golf manufacturers are continually designing clubs to hit with more and more distance, in order to shorten the length of holes off the drive.

Irons have migrated to cavity backs to hedge against mishits.

In pool, tables have a fixed size. There is not a need for more and more "powerful" cues like there is a call for more powerful golf clubs.

So for pool, it would seem that accuracy is the more important component.

My question is thus: If LD users feel that their shafts can afford them more accuracy (and give them better performance), then why do they all not play with Z3s, the most accurate shaft available?

Furthermore, why do the majority of pros, whose living is predicated on being as accurate as humanly possible, not prefer shafts like the Z3?

I have a theory why.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

You are correct in that this is a benefit. The problem is that the benefit derived from this is not even remotely close to as consequential as you think it is. You might make a couple more shots out of hundred that you would have other wise missed. For 98+% of the shots though, if you would have missed them with a standard shaft, you would have missed them with a low deflection shaft too. Keep in mind how small the contact patch is on the object ball that will result in the ball being pocketed. It is tiny. Also keep in mind how much deflection the low deflection shafts have, which is still actually quite a bit. People tend to think of them as no deflection shafts, and they aren't even remotely close to that. They still deflect a lot. Most balls that you miss with a standard shaft would have also failed to go in with a low deflection shaft.

You also ignored the pivot points that can make standard shafts have lower and even no deflection a lot of the time, the fact that you lose feel with low deflection shafts, the fact that you can't shoot as many of the more accurate full cue jumps shots with a low deflection shaft and therefore you jumping success will be affected, the fact that low deflection isn't necessarily always better for accuracy every time as Gorramjayne pointed out and sometimes a standard shaft will pocket a ball on a cueing error that the low deflection would have missed on, etc, all of which allow the standard shafts at times to pocket shots that the low deflection shaft would have missed. There are many drawbacks to low deflection shafts and many benefits to standard deflection shafts that you ignored and didn't take into consideration.

So they both save some shots at various times for differing reasons, but which one nets out as better overall? As I said in a previous post, for less skilled players we just don't know for sure as there just isn't any clear evidence one way or the other, just a lot of theory and conjecture but no actual legitimate clear evidence. What is clear is that there is never a "huge" benefit with either type and if one type is ever better than the other for a particular individual it is only be a very small amount. It could even be that a low deflection shaft is very slightly better for one guy and very slightly worse for the next guy. So for top players the evidence is overwhelming, there is no practical difference. For lesser players we don't know if one is always better than the other, or if standard deflection is better for some people and low deflection is better for others, but we do know that if one is ever better than the other that the difference is very small.

I didn't ignore any of the things you mentioned. Nor did I ignore the vast array of situations in which nothing you have said here is relevant. If a beginner player doesn't know where the center of the ball is, and consistently lines up a half tip right of center, they are going to miss a lot. Under these circumstances, they will miss less with a LD shaft. Do you have any idea how many people do not see the center of the cue ball correctly?

Maybe you know everything. If not, I'd suggest thinking a bit more about this issue. Your entire post is littered with assumptions that border on hyperbole. For example, can you offer a citation on that 98% claim? Another: "we do know...that the difference is small". Um, no, we don't know that. We know that you think that though.

A simple experiment could offer actual answers. Get a collection of low level players. set up a few reference shots...say a long straight in, a couple of standard cut shots. All shots with the OB at least 3 or 4 feet from the cue ball. Have them take 10 tries at each shot with each shaft. Tell them to hit center ball. Then we would see.

KMRUNOUT

 

[dr_dave]

Bob Jewett is a huge proponent of low deflection shafts and their benefits (as is Dr. Dave I believe). While I don't believe the currently available evidence really supports those beliefs, they are brilliant guys and when they say or believe something, you listen, so maybe there is something to it, at least for lesser players. For high level players I think the evidence is already pretty clear and convincing.

Like Bob, I am a proponent of LD shafts. For the people who use them effectively, they do offer definite advantages. However, LD shafts also have disadvantages for some people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeyA]

That's not true either.

Patrick is that you?
JoeyA

 

[JoeyA]

I could be wrong but i have watched several lower players switch to ld shafts.
When they did they became more confident spinning the ball because the compensation for deflection is less. The balls they spin alot, go in more often then they did with plain maple.

I think this is what joey a was getting at.

If you havent noticed this in your local hall in the last 7ish years, i would suggest a shovel because your head is in the sand.

Freddie is opinionated but he sure doesn't have his head in the sand. Lol He is one of our more learned players and an engineer if I am not mistaken.

That being said, I observe the same thing in pool rooms. League players using LD shafts spinning their cue ball and making more shots than previous. It could be that they are just getting more experienced at playing but I think they have learned that less squirt means more accuracy when using side spin. Champions and elite champions spinning their cue ball and getting better shape than ever.

Even bangers like JoeyA started playing with LD shafts and now thinks he can cut any ball with outside spin.

When playing with non LD shafts it is more difficult to wrap my mind around using outside spin and aiming the cue ball into space (away from the object ball) in order to hit and pocket the OB.

I've talked to better players than myself on occasion who use traditional maple shafts NOT LD and they say they rely more on speed control, angles and the vertical axis of the cue ball for playing pool, than side spin. Some people call those people "Shot Makers". I wonder why they do that.....

JoeyA

 

[couldnthinkof01]

I started regular shaft for about 12 years (banging balls).

Studied the game and used ld shafts for about 4 years

Have spent 2 back with reg. Maple.

I found that with( ld) i was spinning the ball way more the nessasary and my stroke didnt have to be as consistent to get a good result.

With non ld i dont use as much spin and am more focused on what im doing with the cueball.
The feel is better and my stroke and psr is better.

May change tommorrow but these are my thoughts for now.

Thanks joey, i mean no disrespect to freddie, his work and time in the game is not lost on me, hes a smart cookie

Ps. When I change shafts it took about 6 months playing everyday to feel comfortable again, very frustrating for a while.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Having hit balls with Earl's cue, I can assure you that it is quite low deflection. Orcullo used a Tiger LD shaft for quite some time if I'm not mistaken.

So put them in the company of Alex and SVB as yet more proof that at the highest levels shaft type doesn't matter because they have used both and played at the same high level with both. There are still plenty of great examples of players who only used standard deflection shafts and played at the highest levels possible but instead of wanting to discuss the substance of the argument you are more interested in debating which list individuals belong on even though both lists are strong and compelling evidence that shaft type makes no difference whatsoever at their level.

Ok...you don't understand why this is specifically relevant to your point.

The fact that low deflection shafts were not available doesn't change the fact that Mosconi played pool at the highest levels possible with a standard deflection shaft. My point was that higher levels of pool have not been played with low deflection shafts and he was one of many good examples that can illustrate that point.

let's look at the top 15: SVB, Orcullo, Pagulayan, Ouschan, Shaw, Fisher, Appleton, Morra, Woodward...all play with LD shafts. So um, seems kinda like you most certainly do see the best pool being played, in many cases, with LD shafts.

Do you see low deflection shafts dominating the top of the charts? I don't. Do you see any of those names playing better than Efren or SVB when they were at the top of their games using standard shafts? I don't. All you have managed to say is that the low deflection shaft users can play right there with the standard shaft users. You are preaching to the choir. I agree. Been saying the same thing all along. At their level the shaft type doesn't matter.

Answer this for me. Using your opinion, I want you to list who you believe are the best straight pool, bank pool, eight ball, nine ball, ten ball, and one pocket players of all time. Then list what type of shaft they were using at the height of their game and post it all in this thread. Then go ahead and try to argue again that higher levels of pool can be or have been played with low deflection shafts while looking at your list that will almost assuredly say otherwise.

Regardless, I've already said the shaft type is significantly less important at the top tier pro level.

The evidence doesn't say that it is significantly less important at their level. The evidence says that it makes zero difference at their level. None. Zilch.

I understood your point perfectly. It was not a comprehension issue.

No, you didn't. You said that I was arguing that people should use standard deflection shafts. I never said that, never insinuated that, and never said anything even remotely similar to that. For whatever reason you very obviously haven't understood my posts at all to have gotten that from them.

The logical error here is in assuming that "how much does low deflection really matter" is answered by looking at the highest level players in the game. It isn't.

Well in regards to whether it is better for the highest level players it most certainly is pretty definitively answered by looking at the highest level players. And in the absence of any other compelling evidence regarding lesser players it is an indication (albeit a far from conclusive one) of what is likely the case with lesser players. And yes, there is definitely a lack of legitimate evidence that low deflection shafts are better for lesser players. If you have some then by all mean present it but your theory about it being better for lesser players and why doesn't pass for legitimate evidence.

While it appears we agree on this concept, I'm then puzzled why you would have brought up the whole "pool at the highest level" angle.

Two reasons. First, it is the only group for which we have clear and compelling evidence, and make no mistake about it, the evidence is very clear and compelling. Second, because it is an indication of what is likely the case for lesser players as well. In the case of weaker players it is pretty weak evidence, but it is the only legitimate evidence we have (other than you swearing that low deflection just has to be better for them).

 

[couldnthinkof01]

Most of the pros you listed didnt play ld shafts until they were sponsored.

 

[JoeyA]

I didn't think you meant any disrespect to Freddie but just didn't know if you knew about some of Freddie's contribution to the game.

There are only a couple of shots that I do better with LD shafts and they of course involve spin. One day, I am going to take out my non ld shaft/cues and see if there are certain shots that I do better with them. The only shots I might be able to do better with them are probably straight in shot but that would require some testing over a period of time.

I have a bit more confidence with spinning my cue ball using ld shafts.
JoeyA

I started regular shaft for about 12 years (banging balls).

Studied the game and used ld shafts for about 4 years

Have spent 2 back with reg. Maple.

I found that with( ld) i was spinning the ball way more the nessasary and my stroke didnt have to be as consistent to get a good result.

With non ld i dont use as much spin and am more focused on what im doing with the cueball.
The feel is better and my stroke and psr is better.

May change tommorrow but these are my thoughts for now.

Thanks joey, i mean no disrespect to freddie, his work and time in the game is not lost on me, hes a smart cookie

Ps. When I change shafts it took about 6 months playing everyday to feel comfortable again, very frustrating for a while.

 

[wigglybridge]

the correct answer to the op's question is:

Go practice your straight-ins.

 

[Cornerman]

Freddie is opinionated but he sure doesn't have his head in the sand. Lol He is one of our more learned players and an engineer if I am not mistaken.

Thank you, Joey.

Yes, I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and to the best of my memory, I was the first Mechanical Engineer to describe on these internet boards the transverse wave concept in reference to the amount of mass in effect of the collision due to the offset hit 15 years ago. I had in depth discussions with the late Royce Bunnell on this idea, and though it took some explaining, he most certainly understood it enough to be able to describe it himself on these boards. Almost word-for-word. Believe me when I say how much that makes me happy.

I also did a year and half study with the 314 shaft as my primary shaft, which I posted some 15+ years ago on RSB.

I own over 20 LD shafts.

I've lived in New England, Florida, and California and go to most major tournament in the US. I don't base my opinion on one or two local pool halls.

One would be hard pressed to find someone that has significantly more observation on LD shafts as I over the years, scientifically and empirically.

What I said then is no different than today: LD shaft helps a lot of players, but those that are already used to hitting both sides of the ball with whatever method they have, the advantage of LD isn't so significant, and that there could easily be disadvantages. All of those disadvantages can be seen on Dr. Dave's LD advantages/disadvantages links.

After my year and half of using a 314 (and yes, I was winning tournaments all over New England, also documented, but that really doesn't matter), I switched back to a normal shaft (my new-at-the-time Andy Gilbert), and the world was right. I didn't have any reduction of spin, no reduction of shotmaking with english when returning to a normal shaft. What I did gain by going back to a normal shaft was better, more understandable speed control when using english, and much more accuracy and repeatability when shooting slow, spin shots (higher effective swerve, lower effective squirt).

Nothing has changed over the years, as I've tested and owned most LD shafts available. And those that know me know I'm going to try them out, even if it won't be a fit. I think I know why "New to LD" players like them, but I also know why players like me don't find LD shafts to be an advantage.

That's my story retold, and nothing is different. This topic is brought up every two months. Nothing is different.

For those that love LD shafts, great. I'm happy. But, please refrain from telling me that I need to investigate more, have poor observation skills, shoot with less english , and need to get my head out of the sand.

Thanks.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If a beginner player doesn't know where the center of the ball is, and consistently lines up a half tip right of center, they are going to miss a lot. Under these circumstances, they will miss less with a LD shaft.

Agreed. Where I disagree is with how much difference there will actually be. I don't think they will pocket near as many extra balls that they would have missed with the standard deflection shaft as you do. You are also only focused on that one benefit from the low deflection shaft and not factoring in the many benefits of a standard deflection shaft. You have to factor in the benefits of both and then net them out to see which comes out ahead. Let me know when you do that. This will be next to impossible to do by the way.

can you offer a citation on that 98% claim? Another: "we do know...that the difference is small". Um, no, we don't know that. We know that you think that though.

You have to admit this is pretty funny coming from the guy making the grandiose claims about how big of a difference low deflection shafts make and huge number of more shots people will make with them that they otherwise would have missed all without providing any citation yourself.

The 98% is just a rough number to give an idea of the ball park I was talking about when I said you will still miss most of the shots with a low deflection shaft that you would have missed with a standard shaft. I already gave part of the evidence though. You can calculate it yourself for any particular shot. Calculate how wide the contact patch is on the cue ball to make that particular shot. Calculate the average amount that crappy player will hit away from vertical center ball axis of the cue ball. Now for that same shot, and the average amount the crappy player misses center ball by, calculate the amount of squirt the standard deflection and low deflection shafts will have imparted on the cue ball by the time it reaches the object ball. Now you can compare their amount of squirt from each to half the size of the contact patch on the object ball and get a decent idea if that particular shot would have gone with either shaft. To keep it simple I am ignoring speed and swerve etc but feel free to factor it all in if you wish.

Now do that same calculation for dozens of different shots that would be representative of the broad spectrum of shots that tend to come up in actual games. Keep in mind that a crappier player who can't even hit center ball very well (the type of player you are arguing gets the most benefit from low deflection) certainly won't be able to play position very well if at all and so their shots will tend to be much, much longer than yours would tend to be. If you are not capable of doing all the precise calculations or don't want to bother you may be able to estimate it well enough to get a pretty good ball park idea.

What I think you will find after you analyze a number of shots that the crappy player is most likely to encounter during a game is that most of the shots that they would have missed with a standard deflection shaft they would have also missed with a low deflection shaft.

So whats your citation for your claims about large numbers of shots that would go with a low deflection that wouldn't with standard deflection?

Get a collection of low level players. set up a few reference shots...say a long straight in, a couple of standard cut shots. All shots with the OB at least 3 or 4 feet from the cue ball. Have them take 10 tries at each shot with each shaft. Tell them to hit center ball. Then we would see.

You would have to set up the experiment to cover the full spectrum of shots that would be encountered in real games and in the proper ratios. The way you have that experiment only includes shots where the low deflection shaft has an advantage. I already agree with you that the low deflection shaft will be slightly better in limited areas. I could set up an experiment that only had full cue jump shots and the standard deflection shaft will be the clear winner and I can then erroneously declare it superior based on that too. Setting it up with only the shots that favor one or the other tells you nothing. You have to include the full spectrum of shots in the ratio that they will be encountered in real games by a crappy player. This would be next to impossible to do by the way, but it is what you will have to be able to do to get a definitive answer that way.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I started playing relatively recently (compared to many on here), about 15 years ago. Played the first 2 years with regular maple, and then ld shafts up until now. I'm starting to think the ld shafts are holding me back a bit, and I'm experimenting more and more with non ld shafts. My custom shaft which is not ready yet, will be non-ld. I just think a lot of ld shafts zap power and feel from your stroke. I want the shaft to go through the ball, not bend and twist out of the way.

I find that I play about the same with non-ld shafts, except for some kill strokes, which I find easier to do with an ld-shaft. On the other hand, I find draw and "punch" style strokes much easier to control with ld shafts, so it's not an easy decision to make. What draws me to the non-ld shafts is that they are more stable and consistent in their behavior, regardless of where you strike the cueball. I find this to be valuable, in my search for consistency in my game. At the moment I'm playing with a Mezz, which has moderate ld-properties, and can be considered a good compromise. I think I will go to natural maple all the way, though.