$100 Spin Challenge

[Jaden]

Look even under his unspoken guidelines he should pay up.

1). Do you accept that some shafts have less deflection than others?

2). Do you accept that less deflection means more linear energy imparted from cue to cueball?

3). If the above are accepted givens, then it follows logically and from deductive reasoning, that more spin must be imparted on an off center hit from a shaft that has less deflection.

Jaden

 

[Vinnie]

Why not just use a machine generated draw shot? Draw is spin, right? So the longest draw shot wins.

 

[Bigkahuna]

I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another.

pj
chgo

In my opinion cue, shaft and manufacturers use claims of more spin and deflection as marketing that has been very effective for them. I am not saying that a predator doesn't have less deflection but their marketing will lead you to believe their cues are more "accurate". You are not going to buy one of these cues and be more "accurate". Accuracy is inherentley up to the shooter.

 

[crawfish]

Hey guys, guys. What if you get used to, and like, the deflection? Remember Earl played with an older Meucci when he conquered the world.

Again, this is ridiculous.

 

[Jaden]

absolutely....

In my opinion cue, shaft and manufacturers use claims of more spin and deflection as marketing that has been very effective for them. I am not saying that a predator doesn't have less deflection but their marketing will lead you to believe their cues are more "accurate". You are not going to buy one of these cues and be more "accurate". Accuracy is inherentley up to the shooter.

I agree and think that LD shaft technology, while it does what it claims, is only a detriment to people's potential and allows people to succumb to the I want it now the easy way out. I don't think it makes people more accurate, it just has less deflection, allowing people who play by feel to not have to adjust soo much.

But this thread is about the attempt by PJ to win an argument by attrition and it would be nice to see him admit to his folly atleast once.

Jaden.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Why can't you do the test?

Give this a little thought, Devindra (it will only hurt at first) - maybe something will occur to you.

pj
chgo

 

[Bigkahuna]

A test?

While Patrick's test is very thoughtful in regards to accounting for a large number of variables it requires a very light touch to bring the ball back to one rail. Many people might suggest that a maximum spin can only be achieved stroking the ball at a speed that is more than lag speed stroking with a good follow through.

Myself I do not believe there would be much of a difference between shafts. We already know that more spin does not always get you more throw effect and if you want greater spin effect off the rail the amount of english and speed applied will have the greatest effect. So, even if it were that one shaft spun the ball more than the other who cares.

If you want to upgrade "equipment" get a lesson from an instructor and upgrade every thing that makes that cue move!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

1). Do you accept that some shafts have less deflection than others?

2). Do you accept that less deflection means more linear energy imparted from cue to cueball?

3). If the above are accepted givens, then it follows logically and from deductive reasoning, that more spin must be imparted on an off center hit from a shaft that has less deflection.

Jaden

More "linear energy" doesn't produce more spin; it produces more spin and more speed in the same proportions - the cue ball will travel farther, but its angle of rebound from a rail won't change. However, since squirt pushes against the cue ball in the direction opposite to spin, lower squirt shafts might produce a theoretically greater spin/speed ratio (the practical definition of "more spin") - but my test shows no practical difference.

Not a bad idea, but no cigar.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

While Patrick's test is very thoughtful in regards to accounting for a large number of variables it requires a very light touch to bring the ball back to one rail. Many people might suggest that a maximum spin can only be achieved stroking the ball at a speed that is more than lag speed stroking with a good follow through.

Maximum spin isn't necessary to compare shafts. It's only necessary that they hit the same cue ball spot.

If you want to upgrade "equipment" get a lesson from an instructor and upgrade every thing that makes that cue move!

I agree with this. In fact, it's the underlying point of this thread.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

In my opinion cue, shaft and manufacturers use claims of more spin and deflection as marketing that has been very effective for them. I am not saying that a predator doesn't have less deflection but their marketing will lead you to believe their cues are more "accurate". You are not going to buy one of these cues and be more "accurate". Accuracy is inherentley up to the shooter.

Not always.

Predator's claim is that their shaft deflects equally no matter which direction the cue is held in.

Their basic test is to set up a shot and then have the machine shoot the ball in. Then they rotate the cue - same non-Predator shaft cue - and the ball will not go in. They can show that a single piece shaft can have a wide range of deflection. Then they show that the Predator shaft will make the shot no matter which rotation it's in. That is where the "more accuracy" claim comes from. They didn't just make this stuff up.

A shooter can be dead on with their aim but miss the shot because the cue deflected more or less than they thought it would.

Thus a shaft that has radial consistency and deflects pretty much equally is going to make cue ball hit much closer to the intended target more often thus it is more accurate.

So yes, you could buy one and be more accurate, provided that your stroke is straight and you can hit the cue ball in the same place every time.

I honestly don't know about whether a Predator shaft can generate more spin or not. But as far as the accuracy part goes I'd have to say that the shafts are more accurate than one piece shafts going by the description I posted above.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LD shaft technology, while it does what it claims, is only a detriment to people's potential and allows people to succumb to the I want it now the easy way out.

This is pretty silly. Lower squirt is inherently more accurate, like shooting a rifle built to closer tolerances. If you're too proud to "take the easy way out", I guess you'd purposely buy the least accurate rifle too.

pj
chgo

 

[8-Baller]

Here's logical proof (assuming a defined coefficient of friction of the tip on the cueball):

An infinitely heavy shaft will produce maximum deflection and impart little spin.

An infinitely light shaft will produce zero deflection and impart maximum spin.


If you can deny this logic, please do so. Otherwise, pay up!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's logical proof (assuming a defined coefficient of friction of the tip on the cueball):

An infinitely heavy shaft will produce maximum deflection and impart little spin.

An infinitely light shaft will produce zero deflection and impart maximum spin.


If you can deny this logic, please do so. Otherwise, pay up!

If you can find these two shafts and demonstrate it I will.

pj
chgo

 

[8-Baller]

If you can find these two shafts and demonstrate it I will.

pj
chgo

Interesting response. That leads me to conclude that your "challenge" is merely an exercise to be "argumentative", rather than to prove a theory. In all your years of playing pool, you cannot honestly tell us that you see no difference between two shafts in terms of the ability to apply spin. To do so, will be a lie...and I am willing to bet on that (of course how to prove that you are lying?).

99% of pool players know from OBSERVATION and HANDS ON experience that different shafts can produce different spin-abilities. I played with a friend who had no exposure the the media "hype" of low deflection...etc..etc... He didn't even know who Predator was. But when he tried the Z-shaft, he immediately told me that he was able to impart much much more spin than his regular shooting cue can ever do. And the differences are OBVIOUS and OBSERVABLE. Just because the average joe does not care to put measurements to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Logic and science tells us that different shafts can produce different spin results. But you refuse to acknowledge that because nobody did a controlled experiment in front of your face to prove it to you.....therefore it must be wrong. That is ridiculous.

It's like saying the theory of relativity is wrong because nobody did the experiment in front of you to prove it.....despite the fact that it has been proven mathematically (and by experiment by many scientific groups). But if you are going to pay me $100 to accelerate an atomic clock to 80% the speed of light and then bring it back again to prove to you that relativity exists, then think again.

I firmly believe that you already know the answer to your challenge and that different shafts truely can produce different spin-ability, but you only raise this challenge to be argumentative and controversial....perhaps in an effort to get noticed? Maybe you view everyone as lowly lemmings that you can manipulate as you laugh in the background while you watch them do your silly experiments? Either way, you need to seek help.

By the way, Happy Holidays to you to!

Donald

 

[Bigkahuna]

Maximum spin isn't necessary to compare shafts. It's only necessary that they hit the same cue ball spot.

pj
chgo

I agree, but I think many people are going to argue they need to really stroke the ball with follow through to demonstrate where one shaft might have more spin than another. The speed at which you are asking people to hit the ball is very soft to be fair your test should require different speeds.

This is all irrelevant anyways because if you want more spin applying more english will have a far greater effect than any small difference a shaft might make.

 

[td873]

1. I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another. [post 1]
   
2. I'm willing to let another qualified person judge the proof. Three acceptable posters come to mind: Mike Page, Bob Jewett and Dr. Dave. [post 7]
   
3. Not spin and speed. Just spin - in other words, a greater spin/speed ratio. [post 17 - limiting criteria #1]
   
4. I've already described a test for you that resolves these issues. [post 19 - possible limiting criteria (i.e., test that PJ wants used)]
   
5. Or is it one of those where the best anybody can do is come up with excuses for not testing it? [post 20 - nothing relevant just antagonistic statement #1]
   
6. I've posted (more than once) a simple test that anybody can do on any pool table with no special equipment. [post 22 - possible confirmation of point #4]
   
7. If $100 is meaningless to you, put it up with mine. It's for science! [post 23 - questionable statement #1]
   
8. OK, I'll put you in the "don't care" bin. Thanks for letting us know. [post 25 - antagonistic statement #2]
   
9. OK, I'll put you in the "don't care" bin again. Thanks again for letting us know again.[post 27 - antagonistic statement #3]
   
10. If you expect me to watch a half hour Meucci ad to find out what you're talking about, you'll have to send me $100. [post 33 - limiting criteria, denial of point #2]
    
11. If you'll tell me where in that half hour ad the "proof" is, I'll be glad to look at it. Did you bother to look at it to see if any proof exists before tossing accusations around? [post 38 - antagonistic statement #4]
    
12. One thing we know for sure: saying it can't be done won't do it. But I guess you gotta go with what you got... [post 39 - questionable statement #2]
    
13. If it's proof when somebody says it's true, isn't it proof when I say it's false? [post #40 - limiting criteria #3, denial of point #2]
    
14. Probably the same thing I know with my 10mm stiff shaft. I had it made for the benefits it gives, none of which are more spin. [post 56 - limiting critera #4]
    
15. There's no way to prove that every shaft is the same except to demonstrate that nobody can show a difference. [post 59 - faulty premise, faulty conclusion]
    
16. I could buy that, but it wouldn't be a test in the spirit of the challenge.
    [post 66 - limiting criteria #5, denial of point #2]
    
17. THE TEST [post 73 - limiting criteria #6]
    
18. Give this a little thought, Devindra (it will only hurt at first) - maybe something will occur to you. [post #86 - antagonistic statement #5]
    
19. More "linear energy" doesn't produce more spin; it produces more spin and more speed in the same proportions - the cue ball will travel farther, but its angle of rebound from a rail won't change. However, since squirt pushes against the cue ball in the direction opposite to spin, lower squirt shafts might produce a theoretically greater spin/speed ratio (the practical definition of "more spin") - but my test shows no practical difference. [post #88 - limiting criteria #7, denial of point #2]
    
20. Maximum spin isn't necessary to compare shafts. It's only necessary that they hit the same cue ball spot. [post 89 - limiting factor #8]
    
21. This is pretty silly. Lower squirt is inherently more accurate, like shooting a rifle built to closer tolerances. If you're too proud to "take the easy way out", I guess you'd purposely buy the least accurate rifle too. [post 91 - questionable statement #3, faulty premise, faulty conclusion]
    
22. If you can find these two shafts and demonstrate it I will. [post #93 - denial of #2]
    

Just pointing out that "proof" is a moving target. Especially in light of point #2, and the following "not good enough for me" posts.

The best I can come up with is that proof does not mean logical proof, rather it means:
"concrete impirical evidence, performced under THE TEST, judged only by PJ, illustrating a difference in spin only under exact and identical conditions except for substituting shaft X for shaft Y, not including shafts that can contact the cue ball farther on the horizontal axis (i.e., smaller diameter shafts), not including or incorporating data provided by Meucci, not including examples/tests PJ does not agree with, and not including any results similar to tests PJ has 'performed'." [Note that PJ has performed tests, and accepts his data as accurate, and refutes other data based on his results, but his tests cannot meet the identical conditions requirement, therefore his reliance is misplaced.]

Just thought I'd illustrate the difficulty in engaging in reasonable dialogue with PJ. NOT that his original question has no merit, just that discussing these things with PJ is very difficult as he is unreceptive other points and will become combative when his position is threatened, when he disagrees with someone, or when he dislikes proof, a result, a theory, or a question.

The (un?)fortunate, and ironic side effect is that some beneficial discussion takes place in spite of PJs presence...

-td

 

[crawfish]

Interesting response. That leads me to conclude that your "challenge" is merely an exercise to be "argumentative", rather than to prove a theory. In all your years of playing pool, you cannot honestly tell us that you see no difference between two shafts in terms of the ability to apply spin. To do so, will be a lie...and I am willing to bet on that (of course how to prove that you are lying?).

99% of pool players know from OBSERVATION and HANDS ON experience that different shafts can produce different spin-abilities. I played with a friend who had no exposure the the media "hype" of low deflection...etc..etc... He didn't even know who Predator was. But when he tried the Z-shaft, he immediately told me that he was able to impart much much more spin than his regular shooting cue can ever do. And the differences are OBVIOUS and OBSERVABLE. Just because the average joe does not care to put measurements to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Logic and science tells us that different shafts can produce different spin results. But you refuse to acknowledge that because nobody did a controlled experiment in front of your face to prove it to you.....therefore it must be wrong. That is ridiculous.

It's like saying the theory of relativity is wrong because nobody did the experiment in front of you to prove it.....despite the fact that it has been proven mathematically (and by experiment by many scientific groups). But if you are going to pay me $100 to accelerate an atomic clock to 80% the speed of light and then bring it back again to prove to you that relativity exists, then think again.

I firmly believe that you already know the answer to your challenge and that different shafts truely can produce different spin-ability, but you only raise this challenge to be argumentative and controversial....perhaps in an effort to get noticed? Maybe you view everyone as lowly lemmings that you can manipulate as you laugh in the background while you watch them do your silly experiments? Either way, you need to seek help.

By the way, Happy Holidays to you to!

Donald

Yaaay! Once again, this is a joke, isn't it? If not, let's compare the radial consistency of the denser wood that is treated with salt over fifteen years as opposed to the one without. Also, I want to see the angle of the cue, the elevation, and the pretty striped one versus the plain jane. What kind of tips during my experiment, you might ask? No tip. That would raise another question. Also, we need the right humidity on the table to test this. Man, if we spent as much time on finding sponsors as to asking things that make 1/10,000 of the game, we might actually not have time to ask these fun things. That being said, I also want to check the yellow cue versus the green one. Green is definitely easier on the eye over a period of time.

Now, pay me.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In all your years of playing pool, you cannot honestly tell us that you see no difference between two shafts in terms of the ability to apply spin.

Actually, I can and have, using the test I described. I've done this on many occasions with many different shafts.

To do so, will be a lie...and I am willing to bet on that (of course how to prove that you are lying?).

But I'm the one that's argumentative? LOL.

99% of pool players know from OBSERVATION and HANDS ON experience that different shafts can produce different spin-abilities.

That's the point of challenging them to demonstrate it. What they "know" isn't factual.

...the differences are OBVIOUS and OBSERVABLE.

So then they're DEMONSTRABLE. Demonstrate them and shut me up.

Just because the average joe does not care to put measurements to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Actually, it probably does mean that.

Logic and science tells us that different shafts can produce different spin results.

No, it tells us that osmium rods and pieces of straw might produce different results than pool shafts. We have no demonstration of these thought experiments and none of them have anything to do with playing pool anyway.

It's like saying the theory of relativity is wrong because nobody did the experiment in front of you to prove it...

Actually, many experiments have confirmed it.

By the way, Happy Holidays to you to!

Why do I get the feeling this isn't entirely sincere?

pj
chgo

 

[Jaden]

This is pretty silly. Lower squirt is inherently more accurate, like shooting a rifle built to closer tolerances. If you're too proud to "take the easy way out", I guess you'd purposely buy the least accurate rifle too.

pj
chgo

With automatic adjustments available like BHE, it is NOT more accurate.

When used appropriately, BHE works. period. Efren uses it, most phillipinos use it. It just works. It works a hell of a lot better than LD technology and feel.

Jaden

 

[Patrick Johnson]

td873:

[snip rambling]

...shafts that can contact the cue ball farther on the horizontal axis (i.e., smaller diameter shafts)

How can a smaller diameter shaft contact the cue ball farther from center than a larger diameter shaft can? Why can't a larger diameter shaft contact the same point just by moving it a little farther sideways?

pj
chgo