Is a Cue with Less Squirt or Cue Ball Deflection Better?

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that discusses and demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of LD (low CB deflection or low squirt) shafts, explores the pitfalls of back-hand-english (BHE), shows the effectiveness of the System for Aiming With Sidespin (SAWS), and completely answers the question: Is an LD shaft better?:


Contents:
0:00 - Intro
1:00 - LD Advantages
3:06 - Aiming Differences
6:03 - BHE Pivots
7:55 - BHE is Not Perfect
9:33 - SAWS is Better
11:03 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, I just posted a new video that discusses and demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of LD (low CB deflection or low squirt) shafts, explores the pitfalls of back-hand-english (BHE), shows the effectiveness of the System for Aiming With Sidespin (SAWS), and completely answers the question: Is an LD shaft better?:


Contents:
0:00 - Intro
1:00 - LD Advantages
3:06 - Aiming Differences
6:03 - BHE Pivots
7:55 - BHE is Not Perfect
9:33 - SAWS is Better
11:03 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

I think LD are better for some shots, when I use the Revo my obstructed shots where I can only hit part of the cueball like on a rail or over a ball are more accurate. I am able to get more spin action out a LD shaft and a layered tip than with a standard shaft and layered or normal tip. I don't do any sort of calculated pivot point or spin method, just line up and shoot and see if I miss or not. If I miss, I know I can't aim that way next time.
 
hang-the-9 said:
I think LD are better for some shots, when I use the Revo my obstructed shots where I can only hit part of the cueball like on a rail or over a ball are more accurate.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this is the case? Smaller diameter, rounder tip, mental factors?


hang-the-9 said:
I am able to get more spin action out a LD shaft and a layered tip than with a standard shaft and layered or normal tip.
Click to expand...

FYI, this topic is covered in detail here:

The tip shouldn't make a difference per the info and demonstrations here:

The type of chalk really doesn't matter either:



hang-the-9 said:
I don't do any sort of calculated pivot point or spin method, just line up and shoot and see if I miss or not. If I miss, I know I can't aim that way next time.
Click to expand...

Trial and error is the most common "aiming system when using sidespin." SAWS is better.
 
The only time I've heard of a notable player switching back and forth is Alex P. I think I read somewhere that he prefers solid maple for the soft touch games, (1pkt & 14.1). Something to do with maximizing squirt with minimal power.
 
The_JV said:
The only time I've heard of a notable player switching back and forth is Alex P. I think I read somewhere that he prefers solid maple for the soft touch games, (1pkt & 14.1). Something to do with maximizing squirt
Click to expand...

Why would you want to "maximize squirt?"


The_JV said:
with minimal power.
Click to expand...

This has to do more with cue hit efficiency than CB deflection. An LD shaft, especially carbon fiber, can have much better hit efficiency than a typical maple-shaft cue, especially with a hard tip.
 
dr_dave said:
Why would you want to "maximize squirt?"
Click to expand...
Consider the need to throw a partially obstructed OB with CB spin when a very soft shot is desired. You require a given amount of CB spin for sake of throwing the OB, need the heavy squirt to miss the obstruction but can't hit it as hard as would would need to, to generate the same effect with a LD shaft. It's sounds obscure, but it was how it was explained to me.
dr_dave said:
This has to do more with cue hit efficiency than CB deflection. An LD shaft, especially carbon fiber, can have much better hit efficiency than a typical maple-shaft cue, especially with a hard tip.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the efficient transmission of energy into the CB. If anything, if there was a LD shaft that was horribly inefficient at transmitting energy into the CB. It would be a closer comparison to what's require in the fore mention shot situation.

I personally don't use solid maple at all. However I understand the concept of why some do in those games.
 
The_JV said:
Pretty sure there may even be an interview clip wherein Alex explains why he prefers solid maple in these circumstances. Regardless, most things preach in this game as gospel is just personal preference.
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised. Pros spent their formative years playing pool, not studying theory - “can do more” doesn’t necessarily equal “knows more”.

pj
chgo
 
dr_dave said:
Agreed. Just because a cue has a different amount of squirt (CB deflection) does not mean a shot (any shot) cannot be aimed accurately. With SAWS, if you give me 15-20 minutes to calibrate to a different cue (LD or non-LD), I can hit any shot just as accurately with any cue.
Click to expand...
Agree. However I don't think this has anything to do with aiming. More so utilizing excessive squirt as a tool to facilitate shot options.

Meaning...: The excessive squirt of solid maple doesn't make aiming more or less accurate. It does provide some an additional tool to manipulate the CB.

Whether you, I or Patrick think that has value is moot in the mind of the player that enjoys that level of feel.
 
The_JV said:
Agree. However I don't think this has anything to do with aiming. More so utilizing excessive squirt as a tool to facilitate shot options.

Meaning...: The excessive squirt of solid maple doesn't make aiming more or less accurate. It does provide some an additional tool to manipulate the CB.
Click to expand...

If by “additional tool,” you mean “you need to aim differently to achieve the exact same result,” then I agree. More squirt is certainly not necessary to make any particular type of shot.

The_JV said:
Whether you, I or Patrick think that has value is moot in the mind of the player that enjoys that level of feel.
Click to expand...

This is not about “me or you or Patrick.” This about understanding basic pool physics.

Now, what a player thinks (even if those thoughts are “alternative facts”) can definitely affect how that player plays. The mind is a powerful thing.
 
This shot is the one thing I had to work at, when making the switch. Used to be able to aim right at a piece of the obstructing ball. Now have to aim away from it. I’d say it’s the one thing, I ever do, that was easier with my previous cue.
 
dr_dave said:
If by “additional tool,” you mean “you need to aim differently to achieve the exact same result,” then I agree.
Click to expand...
No that's not what I mean, and I'm content with us being separate pages. ;)
dr_dave said:
More squirt is certainly not necessary to make any particular type of shot.
Click to expand...
How about a masse'...? ;) Isn't that squirt & swerve..?

Kidding aside, I don't think I implied it was. "Necessary" for anything that is. However, squirt is a subsequent reality of hitting a CB with side english. Having a strong working knowledge of how much squirt will be developed based on stroke power and CB contact is an asset. That asset can be a tool when maneuvering through a pattern. 'Some' prefer to use squirt as a means to narrowly miss obstructions. A solid maple shaft provides a great 'range' of squirt with less stroke power, then a LD counterpart.

Speaking for myself. When I know my aim line barely passes an obstruction. I don't aim to miss the obstruction, but aim to clip it and use squirt to ensure the miss. Is that unnecessary..?..., sure is. I could merely aim to miss the obstruction. That's just not the way I prefer to do it. I have zero doubt others perform the same method. I also have zero doubt that some prefer the greater range of squirt solid maple provides. I personally don't.
dr_dave said:
This is not about “me or you or Patrick.” This about understanding basic pool physics.
Click to expand...
My side of the fence isn't discussing physics at all. There's zero disagreement in this regard. This is about person preference and always has been.

LD = less squirt
Solid = more squirt

Pretty sure we are the same page here. Whether or not there's value in having the greater range in squirt seems to be the sticking point. It's ok if no one agrees. I have no dog in this fight. However I do find it entertaining that there seems to be zero value assigned by some merely because physics states there's another way to skin the cat. I don't argue the physics. I could argue the variables that are considered though. That said, we'd be far better off if someone far more versed than myself would do so.
dr_dave said:
Now, what a player thinks (even if those thoughts are “alternative facts”) can definitely affect how that player plays. The mind is a powerful thing.
Click to expand...
Definitely, and that's why it's a fool's errand to argue the moot.

Not sure how in depth this goes but here's a vid** wherein Alex briefly explains the multiple cue thing (**Looks like that one is about joint)
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Aim, squirt & swerve- and the squirt is not necessary, just like other kinds of shots.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Sure... I guess reality doesn't make anything necessary.

When I require a slight masse the squirt is necessary for me to get around the ball. I could aim to miss rather than use the squirt as you suggest, but then I'd have to either offset my contact point on the ball to generate more swerve (which may or may not be possible or wanted) or hit it faster to create that additional spin, but that would generate more squirt that's not necessary. weird stuff.... probably better off to account for it.

JV <--full circle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top