I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another.
pj
chgo
pj
chgo
$100 Spin Challenge
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
What you need to do is offer a million dollars to the first person that proves that the CTE/Hal/other similar systems do not require adjustments, even subconscious ones. Don't worry, your money is safe.Patrick Johnson said:
Patrick Johnson said:
I've got bad news for you Patrick. A thin shaft/narrow tip can and will produce more "english" on the cue ball than a thick one, IN THE PROPER HANDS OF COURSE.
I have no desire to prove this to you. Let's just say it comes from forty years of experience.
JB Cases said:
I'm willing to let another qualified person judge the proof. Three acceptable posters come to mind: Mike Page, Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave. Of course, it might be that none of them have the time or the inclination to do it. I'm acquainted with Mike. I've never met Bob or Dave.
I believe a simple, cost-free test can be devised, but it may take more than an offhand effort to conduct it fairly.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
So, to be clear.
The shaft has to be constructed within acceptable parameters that are suitable to playing pool in general. The tip should be leather, preferably the same brand and hardness to eliminate the tip as the reason for any difference in spin. Or should the test be conducted with no tip at all?
The cue tip must strike the ball at the same speed and in the same location.
How would you then determine that more or less spin was generated?
Would you want to calibrate the shaft to insure that the cue ball was striking the rail at exactly the same spot each time? Then what? Where the ball ends up determines the amount of spin that was generated? If the ball travels more or less then that is the indicator?
Predator claims that their shafts produce 25% more spin than single piece shafts. Is their data not acceptable proof?
I have never verified their claims but I was in their shop and saw how they test shafts. They definitely have the setup that I would think would allow them to test how much spin is imparted to the cueball with different shafts and as such would be the basis for the claims they make.
So you have claimed that no shaft imparts more spin. Is Predator Products brazenly lying to the consumers according to your statement?
Predator? How about claiming Pat's $100 and showing us the proof?
This is one way you can do it for free...
Shoot from the spot to the middle diamond on the end rail with maximum english. Record where the cueball hits the side rail. Compare with several shafts.
To attempt to standardize strokes used among several shafts...
1. Use the Jim Rempe training ball on the advanced side. Only accept results that hit the same mark on the cue ball.
2. Right in front of the end rail place a strip of paper on the bed with two lines 2.5 inches apart. Use video and or witnesses to verify the ball passed through the lines. Only accept results that had the cue ball passing through these two lines.
Shoot from the spot to the middle diamond on the end rail with maximum english. Record where the cueball hits the side rail. Compare with several shafts.
To attempt to standardize strokes used among several shafts...
1. Use the Jim Rempe training ball on the advanced side. Only accept results that hit the same mark on the cue ball.
2. Right in front of the end rail place a strip of paper on the bed with two lines 2.5 inches apart. Use video and or witnesses to verify the ball passed through the lines. Only accept results that had the cue ball passing through these two lines.
I know my OB1 produced a noticable difference that my original shaft.
maybe its was the tip... Don't know... But my uneducated opinion is my OB1 allows me to spin easier. Meaning, I can hit closer to center and get more spin than I think I can get hitting further out with the maple shaft... Could be all in my head though... I am willing to live with not knowing though
DR Dave could use one of his robotic arms and prove this pretty easy. he is all set up for such tests...
maybe its was the tip... Don't know... But my uneducated opinion is my OB1 allows me to spin easier. Meaning, I can hit closer to center and get more spin than I think I can get hitting further out with the maple shaft... Could be all in my head though... I am willing to live with not knowing though
DR Dave could use one of his robotic arms and prove this pretty easy. he is all set up for such tests...
I'm not sure of the original poster's intent, or if this has spilled over from some other thread. But maybe he is asking simply to prove or disprove that different equipment produce different results. If that is the case, I would think the tips would not have to be the same on the test shafts. Only the hit on the cueball and the initial direction of the cue ball.
By the way, I too would not bother attempting this unless it was for $5000. Its just too much hassle. In the time it takes to set up this test, I can practice a shot I have trouble with and nail it down. That would be real improvement to my game.
iusedtoberich said:
This is my original question. The only thing is that there is no way for a human to hit the cueball at exactly the same speed or even the same place every time. So what would be the acceptable range of results to determine how much spin was on the ball.
I did this test with several shafts - I have a picture of the 18 or so shafts of different construction that I have for testing - with each shaft marked as to it's properties.
The cueball landed in approximately the same area each time when shot with medium speed. I used the Cuesight Training Ball to verify the accuracy of the hit on the ball. So the indication is that none of the shafts produced spin that was noticeably more or less.
However when I then played with each shaft I noticed that I could get more or less spin with each of them.
So what does that tell you?
I, am really interested in the answer to this.
I have related this story before but I once had two cues that were identical in appearance. The only difference is that one of them had a shaft similar to a pool cue with a 1.25" ferrule/13mm tip. The other one had a shaft with a carom taper and .5" ferrule/12mm. With the carom one I was able to make masse' shots that I could not do with the pool one.
So I am with Jay Helfert in that personal experience tells me that some cues (shafts/joint/ferrule/tip combinations) do impart more spin than others.
I know from jumping that some cues jump better than others so to me it stands to reason that if there are clear performance differences on this aspect that there ought to also be clear ones on the other aspect.
I refuse to believe that a ramin wood shaft with a soft plastic ferrule and a Moori med tip will be as easy to play with as a hard rock maple shaft with a dense ferrule and a Moori medium. Give both shafts to Larry Nevel and I will bet LARGE that he cannot perform all of his power shots using the Ramin Wood shaft.
You would actually need a machine to do this. It would need a machine to set parameters as far as exact striking point and stroke power is concerned. A human cannot actually definitively prove this.
It would take two shafts of exactly equal weight, taper and tip diameter with the exact same tip which is shaped exactly the same with the same exact amount of chalk. You would then have to aim that shaft at the exact same spot on the CB at the exact same angle.
$100 just isn't worth the trouble.
*edit* Ooops forgot that both shafts would need the exact same ferrule as well.
It would take two shafts of exactly equal weight, taper and tip diameter with the exact same tip which is shaped exactly the same with the same exact amount of chalk. You would then have to aim that shaft at the exact same spot on the CB at the exact same angle.
$100 just isn't worth the trouble.
*edit* Ooops forgot that both shafts would need the exact same ferrule as well.
Patrick,Patrick Johnson said:
If, say, an 18 oz cue is the optimal weight for a particular player striking centerball, then for some given applied stroking force, it can be proven that a cue lighter than 18 oz will produce more spin and speed at any other offset compared to the 18 oz one. To the extent that a lighter shaft contributes to the overall weight of a cue, then a lighter shaft will produce more spin.
If you're not accepting of a proof based on math and physics (i.e., you require a demonstration), then in all fairness, you might want to reconsider your skepticism regarding the pivot-based aiming systems, as I think it's grounded in geometry (though little or no physics).
If your point is that claims of significantly increased spin from low squirt cues such as 25%, 10% or even 5% are false, I certainly agree.
Jim
Last edited:
Jal said:
Is this one of those hypothetical challenges where the challenger has no intention of EVER paying up, and even if presented with incontrovertible evidence that convinces even industry experts, will still insist there is a problem with the results?
Me thinks so.
Russ
Jal said:
Not spin and speed. Just spin - in other words, a greater spin/speed ratio.
If the same thing can be accomplished by simpy hitting harder, then it isn't more spin; it's just more force.
pj
chgo
I've already described a test for you that resolves these issues. All it costs you is a little time and effort.
Of course, not trying won't put anybody's beliefs at risk. Maybe that's best.
pj
chgo
Russ Chewning said:
Or is it one of those where the best anybody can do is come up with excuses for not testing it?
Hmm...
pj
chgo