another deflection thread

erhino41

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, swerve is the most difficult of the "aiming variables", due to its dependence on so many other variables - amount of spin, shot distance, shot speed, cue elevation, cloth/ball conditions. Maybe more?



Throw also depends on several variables, even though it's a smaller effect.



I agree that squirt, even though it's the largest effect, is the most predictable of these and so the easiest to deal with - but it's the one we can improve with equipment, so why not do that?



pj

chgo

You can improve upon it so you should improve upon it.

My issue lies with the push for ever less deflection and the ensuing marketing pushes telling everyone that the old one wasn't as accurate as this new one, implying that you need this new one.

Do you think a 1 or 2 percent decrease in end mass makes a shaft far more accurate or impercievably more accurate? That's the range of improvement thats being pushed by the mfg's as near miraculous breakthroughs.

It has been my experience that a high squirt cue gives more than enough margin for error, sure low squirt shafts increase that margin, but I'll never be convinced its necessary. To each his own.

I've had many conversations with many players of all different levels about deflection. The amount of people who have it in their head that they need a different shaft to improve their game is mind boggling, even some very good payers who should know the real ways that they can improve.






Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 

erhino41

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The consistency from shaft to shaft is one great improvement that has come from their endeavors. I know finding two solid maple "high" deflection shafts that play nearly identical is a feat. The ld shafts I've played tend to be very consistent and play similarly from one to the next of the same model a far as I've experienced.





Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
Do you think a 1 or 2 percent decrease in end mass makes a shaft far more accurate or impercievably more accurate? That's the range of improvement thats being pushed by the mfg's as near miraculous breakthroughs.
I don't know the percentages that matter or that are being touted by manufacturers. But I know that some amount matters because I see the difference in my own accuracy when I use a higher squirt cue. So we shouldn't dismiss the whole topic as mere marketing hype - caveat emptor on all sides.

It has been my experience that a high squirt cue gives more than enough margin for error, sure low squirt shafts increase that margin
[semantics]
I think the margin of error for any shot is fixed - the question is whether we're accurate enough to stay within it.
[/semantics]

I stray outside it noticeably more often with higher squirt cues, at least partly because I've played exclusively with an ultra-low squirt cue for the past 20+ years.

And of course familiarity also works the other direction: if you've played more with higher squirt cues you'll likely be more accurate with them until you've spent enough time with lower squirt ones.

I believe the lower squirt ones have (at least a little) more potential for accuracy.

pj
chgo
 

9BallKY

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't know the percentages that matter or that are being touted by manufacturers. But I know that some amount matters because I see the difference in my own accuracy when I use a higher squirt cue. So we shouldn't dismiss the whole topic as mere marketing hype - caveat emptor on all sides.


[semantics]
I think the margin of error for any shot is fixed - the question is whether we're accurate enough to stay within it.
[/semantics]

I stray outside it noticeably more often with higher squirt cues, at least partly because I've played exclusively with an ultra-low squirt cue for the past 20+ years.

And of course familiarity also works the other direction: if you've played more with higher squirt cues you'll likely be more accurate with them until you've spent enough time with lower squirt ones.

I believe the lower squirt ones have (at least a little) more potential for accuracy.

pj
chgo

Companies have been selling low deflection shafts for years saying each one is better. I’ve seen players that can’t hit the end rail with the cue ball buy every new shaft that comes out Guess what they still can’t hit the end rail with the cue ball. So how much a shaft deflects or doesn’t deflect isn’t enough to make much of a difference one way or the other.

I don’t know of a single player that’s went from an average player to a pro level by simply playing with a different shaft.
 

KMRUNOUT

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There are some pretty poor arguments being made in this thread. Also, I’m really surprised people are not taking skill level into account. The difference between a 650 Fargo player and a 700 player are *very* small. A tiny tiny benefit for a 650 level player means far more than that same tiny benefit for a 450 level player.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
 

softshot

Simplify
Silver Member
Does squirt do more than change the CB's direction? Couldn't that be done more easily and accurately with a squirtless cue just by changing aim?

pj
chgo

if you can generate more swerve which means more english and more extreme compensations....

vs .. 2 tips of right and jack up a little bit
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
if you can generate more swerve which means more english and more extreme compensations....

vs .. 2 tips of right and jack up a little bit
I have to admit that makes as much sense as any other argument I’ve heard in support of squirt’s “usefulness”.

pj
chgo
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
if you can generate more swerve which means more english and more extreme compensations....

vs .. 2 tips of right and jack up a little bit
I don't understand your post. Could you please redo it as a complete, stand-alone statement?
 

softshot

Simplify
Silver Member
I don't understand your post. Could you please redo it as a complete, stand-alone statement?

the minor masse effect needed to curve around the edge of a ball is my main contention for "squirt is useful"

the less deflection a shaft has the more difficult it becomes to make the same shot...not saying it can't be learned.. but it IS more difficult.. less deflection means you need more swerve which equates to more english.. and a more extreme stroke line to make the same shot.

I can aim the cut as straight and by minor shift to the side and a minor jacking up on the back of the cue I can connect the curve to the straight aim line easier and with less compensation..

the theoretical squirtless cue has to do this all with swerve meaning a much bigger curve requiring more extreme english to compensate, and far more difficult aiming.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
the minor masse effect needed to curve around the edge of a ball is my main contention for "squirt is useful"

the less deflection a shaft has the more difficult it becomes to make the same shot...not saying it can't be learned.. but it IS more difficult.. less deflection means you need more swerve which equates to more english.. and a more extreme stroke line to make the same shot.

I can aim the cut as straight and by minor shift to the side and a minor jacking up on the back of the cue I can connect the curve to the straight aim line easier and with less compensation..

the theoretical squirtless cue has to do this all with swerve meaning a much bigger curve requiring more extreme english to compensate, and far more difficult aiming.
I look at the shot differently. The cue ball will follow the same path in either case. With a low-squirt cue, you have to aim a little farther from the obstructing ball, but you are aiming closer to the actual starting path of the cue ball. I agree that with a high-squirt cue you can more or less ignore the ball you're going to swerve around, but I do the same with a low-squirt shaft. I simply aim to make the ball with the side spin and elevation I need and I try to ignore the obstructing ball and trust the swerve to be there.

I think whether the shot feels harder or not depends a lot more on the player than the cue stick.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
...less deflection means you need more swerve which equates to more english..
I think it's simpler than that.

More or less deflection only means you have to hit the same CB spot with the cue angled a little differently to get the same direction of force through the CB, giving the same spin, swerve and everything else.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
not possible to get the same path

I think it's simpler than that.

More or less deflection only means you have to hit the same CB spot with the cue angled a little differently to get the same direction of force through the CB, giving the same spin, swerve and everything else.

pj
chgo



It isn't possible to move a low deflection cue to the side and elevate it to get the same path as a high deflection cue. The second half of the path could be very similar, going around a ball three-quarter to the object ball for example. That part of the path can be pretty much identical despite starting off far different.

However, let's look at a ball one-fourth of the way to the object ball now. The person using a low deflection shaft has to aim further out and make a substantially larger arc than the person who gets the original offset largely through deflection. This one specific shot, the high deflection shaft has benefits over the low deflection shaft.

The low deflection shafts offer a lot of benefits and only rarely is the high deflection shaft superior. The shots mentioned here, masse and jump cues, the high deflection shaft is superior.

By the way, you are at 20,000 posts. You should make it a good one like definitive proof of who shot Kennedy or how to achieve peace in the mideast. Then come back to this if you want to.

Hu
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
It isn't possible to move a low deflection cue to the side and elevate it to get the same path as a high deflection cue.
??? It happens with every side spin shot. They all curve and they can all be duplicated with either cue.

The person using a low deflection shaft has to aim further out and make a substantially larger arc than the person who gets the original offset largely through deflection.
With any side spin shot, whether intentionally curving the CB or simply coping with normal swerve, with different squirt cues you angle the cue differently to get the same initial CB direction. Nothing changes except the angle of the cue.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

erhino41

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've yet to come across a shot that could not be performed with any amount of squirt, low or high.

There is one shot I feel more comfortable with a low squirt shaft, that is threading the needle between obstructing balls on the way to the ob. I mean shots were there is barely a balls width to go through. I shoot them no problem with my high squirt shaft, they just feel dicey as hell. I've probably fouled once or twice in this situation due to improper squirt calculations.

Other than that it is all practice.



Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I've yet to come across a shot that could not be performed with any amount of squirt
Yep.

Cues with more or less squirt simply produce identical forces at slightly different angles to the cues' center lines - angling the cues slightly differently produces identical forces, directions and CB action.

But WTF is up with low squirt and jumping?

pj
chgo
 
Top