Cue ball deflection relative to tighter, more solid grip.

JoeyA

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
I read an article that stated that you can expect more cue ball deflection with a relaxed grip but that the amount of deflection would be more consistent. It also stated that a tighter, firmer grip would result in less deflection. I think he may have something there but I was just wondering why this may be true. I'll be doing some experimenting in the days to come.

Jump in with your thoughts. :D

JoeyA
 
Joe, I would believe the opposite to be true. One afternoon in his shop, Tony S. demonstrated this principle. The other side of the coin, however, is the idea that an overly loose grip may promote inaccurate hits, i.e. not hitting where you are aiming.

tim
 
good question

JoeyA said:
I read an article that stated that you can expect more cue ball deflection with a relaxed grip but that the amount of deflection would be more consistent. It also stated that a tighter, firmer grip would result in less deflection. I think he may have something there but I was just wondering why this may be true. I'll be doing some experimenting in the days to come.

Jump in with your thoughts. :D

JoeyA
Click to expand...


Joey,

When this rabbit has been ran before the physics guys insisted that only the mass of the first few inches of the stick from the tip mattered. I disagree, I think it is the effective mass of the cue tip vs the effective mass of the cue ball. The effective mass of the cue ball is a near constant, being the mass of the cue ball plus the friction between the base of the cue ball and cloth. The effective mass of the tip is much harder, or more realistically impossible, to pin down since it varies with the actual weight of the cue tip area, the stiffness of the shaft, and the firmness of the bridge and grip; also add the distance between the tip and bridge on each shot as a factor.

A softer grip should result in less deflection of the cue ball all other things being equal. I could easily demonstrate this with a robot if I took it to extremes. If I used a straight bar as a bridge(the ultimate open bridge other than none at all) and a spherical rod end at the balance point of the cue, the cue would be able to move readily and the cue ball would have little deflection. Add a second spherical rod end at the buttcap of the stick and the stick would now be locked in place horizontally. I predict greater increased deflection of the cue ball. The real mass guys line of thought always indicated that the deflection should be the same.

If the results are really in doubt I could probably build a robot to test this for $300 to $500 if enough people wanted to chip in to not make it cost prohibitive. I might be able to make something cheaper than that but that is just a guess at cost of materials to build something that would be repeatable.

(added note: distance between bridge and grip is a factor in effective mass also, lots of variables here!)


Hu
 
Last edited:
I am not sure about a tighter grip having any effect.....I can't get an impression how it would

I get the impression that if anything... a tighter "bridge" would have more of an effect on CB deflection....(meaning forcfully holding the bridge more secure to the table and tighter on the shaft)

Of course I don't have any scientific reasons for saying this...just the personal feeling I get.
 
There are different factors that can link to this.

Is it possible to post a link for this article?

In the Snooker world, there is a new cue called Acuerate cue. It reduces cue ball deflection. 7-Times Embassy World Snooker Champion Stephen Hendry uses an Acuerate cue.

In the pool world, they of course have Aramith Acuerate Pool Cues and Predator Cues.

An important factor is how straight one cues on each test, one with a lighter grip and the other with a stronger grip.

I have heard in the Snooker world, that if you 'bed' the tip into the cue ball on impact, with making a push stroke, then it makes less cue ball deflection, this may be linked with a lighter or tighter grip, with it being easier to 'bed' the tip into the cue ball on impact with a tighter grip, and not just 'slapping' the cue ball with a lighter grip.

It is possible to hit the ball well with a lighter grip, but the excepted 'perfect strike' is at the point of impact, the cue is at the point of maximum velocity in your stroke, and the tip will then be in contact with the cue ball a fraction of a second longer, then pushing through straight and smoothly, while still having control of power of your stroke and also not making a push hit or push shot.

A too heavy grip is bad, it can make you lift the butt of your cue a little, and it kills all 'good stroke', it also makes it less smooth.

With a lighter grip, you can find it difficult for spin, because of the possible 'slapping' stroke. You could also drop the cue with the less control that you have, and it could be quite humerous!

Regards,
SnookerAndPool
 
I had read something similar a while back, in an article written by an artistic pool player (trick shots).

He had been practicing this shot diagramed below, squirting the cue and spinning the object ball into the corner pocket. Everyone knows this shot, and the only "trick" to it is to understand how much squirt your cue puts on the cueball and being able to compensate for it. As he was shooting it, he found that as he gripped his cue tighter he got less deflection out of the cueball. Interesting. I would have guessed the opposite, without trying it myself first.

CueTable Help



JoeyA said:
I read an article that stated that you can expect more cue ball deflection with a relaxed grip but that the amount of deflection would be more consistent. It also stated that a tighter, firmer grip would result in less deflection. I think he may have something there but I was just wondering why this may be true. I'll be doing some experimenting in the days to come.

Jump in with your thoughts. :D

JoeyA
Click to expand...
 
JoeyA said:
I read an article that stated that you can expect more cue ball deflection with a relaxed grip but that the amount of deflection would be more consistent. It also stated that a tighter, firmer grip would result in less deflection. I think he may have something there but I was just wondering why this may be true. I'll be doing some experimenting in the days to come.

Jump in with your thoughts. :D

JoeyA
Click to expand...

Hi Joey

Do you prefer spicy brown or dijon mustard on your baloney?
 
mikepage said:
Hi Joey

Do you prefer spicy brown or dijon mustard on your baloney?
Click to expand...

I'm from New Orleans. I like it hot and spicy. ;)

Now just what are you trying to say Mr. Page? Seriously, spell it out and don't be shy. I didn't out the author because I don't want him to get chopped up but the idea is out there and up for discussion. Just don't give me any high end physics equations to solve. :D

Let's just say that when he grips the cue more tightly that the cue ball actually comes closer to the object ball with side spin. What do you think is the reason that he is hitting closer to the object ball?

Let's also assume that when he grips the cue more loosely that he actually hits further away from the object ball with side spin. What do you think is the reason that he is hitting further away from the object ball?

Thanks,
JoeyA
 
worse than that

JoeyInCali said:
Did DCP die and come back as JoeyA?
Click to expand...

Worse than that, JoeyA is his evil twin!

Actually JoeyA is just a guy always looking for a little more knowledge that he can apply to his game. This has real world application unlike how many angels can fit on the head of a tip picker.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Joey,

When this rabbit has been ran before the physics guys insisted that only the mass of the first few inches of the stick from the tip mattered. I disagree, I think it is the effective mass of the cue tip vs the effective mass of the cue ball. The effective mass of the cue ball is a near constant, being the mass of the cue ball plus the friction between the base of the cue ball and cloth. The effective mass of the tip is much harder, or more realistically impossible, to pin down since it varies with the actual weight of the cue tip area, the stiffness of the shaft, and the firmness of the bridge and grip; also add the distance between the tip and bridge on each shot as a factor.

A softer grip should result in less deflection of the cue ball all other things being equal. I could easily demonstrate this with a robot if I took it to extremes. If I used a straight bar as a bridge(the ultimate open bridge other than none at all) and a spherical rod end at the balance point of the cue, the cue would be able to move readily and the cue ball would have little deflection. Add a second spherical rod end at the buttcap of the stick and the stick would now be locked in place horizontally. I predict greater increased deflection of the cue ball. The real mass guys line of thought always indicated that the deflection should be the same.

If the results are really in doubt I could probably build a robot to test this for $300 to $500 if enough people wanted to chip in to not make it cost prohibitive. I might be able to make something cheaper than that but that is just a guess at cost of materials to build something that would be repeatable.

(added note: distance between bridge and grip is a factor in effective mass also, lots of variables here!)


Hu
Click to expand...

Hu

I think the guys who started Predator built that robot, called it "Iron Willie" and used it to come up with their theories about deflection and developed their shafts from that research.

Kevin
 
several have been built

kvinbrwr said:
Hu

I think the guys who started Predator built that robot, called it "Iron Willie" and used it to come up with their theories about deflection and developed their shafts from that research.

Kevin
Click to expand...

Kevin,

Several robots have been built however I have never seen any of them or the testing done with them so I have no way of appraising the validity of the results. One of these days when I get around to it I'll build a robot regardless but it isn't near the front of my plate at the moment.

I'll put the first fifty dollars in and my time in if folks are interested in one built in the near future and I will shoot still shots and video footage so there is some indication of the effectiveness of the machine and validity of the testing. A lot of things could be tested with a machine and we might find some things of interest or we might not. Even after we find out what happens in the tightly controlled experimental testing we are unlikely to get exactly the same results in the real world. However the results should be similar or too minor to be of concern. They should not reverse between test fixtures and real world.

I do have years in design, research, and development to have some qualifications for building a machine, or eventually several machines as different machines will test different things.

Hu
 
Spliced shafts versus conventional

How many believe spliced shafts are inherently better than solid shafts? Who thinks it's all hype?
 
definitely a can of worms for a separate thread

fan-tum said:
How many believe spliced shafts are inherently better than solid shafts? Who thinks it's all hype?
Click to expand...

This can of worms definitely needs a separate thread rather than derailing this one. Spliced shafts are better than low grade maple, not as good as the best natural maple in my opinion. Complicating this matter, some spliced shaft makers believe that the splices make up for using very low grade maple and some still use all decent maple and then you get into the cored shafts.

Hu
 
StevenPWaldon said:
I had read something similar a while back, in an article written by an artistic pool player (trick shots).

He had been practicing this shot diagramed below, squirting the cue and spinning the object ball into the corner pocket. Everyone knows this shot, and the only "trick" to it is to understand how much squirt your cue puts on the cueball and being able to compensate for it. As he was shooting it, he found that as he gripped his cue tighter he got less deflection out of the cueball. Interesting. I would have guessed the opposite, without trying it myself first.

CueTable Help

Click to expand...

That's the same article.
JoeyA
 
SnookerAndPool said:
Is it possible to post a link for this article?

In the Snooker world, there is a new cue called Acuerate cue. It reduces cue ball deflection. 7-Times Embassy World Snooker Champion Stephen Hendry uses an Acuerate cue.

In the pool world, they of course have Aramith Acuerate Pool Cues and Predator Cues.

An important factor is how straight one cues on each test, one with a lighter grip and the other with a stronger grip.

I have heard in the Snooker world, that if you 'bed' the tip into the cue ball on impact, with making a push stroke, then it makes less cue ball deflection, this may be linked with a lighter or tighter grip, with it being easier to 'bed' the tip into the cue ball on impact with a tighter grip, and not just 'slapping' the cue ball with a lighter grip.

It is possible to hit the ball well with a lighter grip, but the excepted 'perfect strike' is at the point of impact, the cue is at the point of maximum velocity in your stroke, and the tip will then be in contact with the cue ball a fraction of a second longer, then pushing through straight and smoothly, while still having control of power of your stroke and also not making a push hit or push shot.

A too heavy grip is bad, it can make you lift the butt of your cue a little, and it kills all 'good stroke', it also makes it less smooth.

With a lighter grip, you can find it difficult for spin, because of the possible 'slapping' stroke. You could also drop the cue with the less control that you have, and it could be quite humerous!

Regards,
SnookerAndPool
Click to expand...

Can you (FURTHER) define "bed" as in to bed the tip into the cue ball? I have an idea but as close as I can assume is the term is used to refer to the contact between the tip and the cue ball. Does it mean to plant the tip into the cue ball with a better touch (attempting to hold the cue tip onto the cue ball)?

I've read a bit on the Acurate cues and it appears that there are mixed opinions about them as there are all low deflection cues whether they be for snooker or for pool.

Thanks for your perspective.

JoeyA
 
Last edited:
JoeyA said:
I read an article that stated that you can expect more cue ball deflection with a relaxed grip but that the amount of deflection would be more consistent.
Click to expand...

I read an article once that stated space aliens have taken over Congress. At least that one's believable.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I read an article once that stated space aliens have taken over Congress. At least that one's believable.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick perhaps you would care to share your explanation of his findings in the article.

For your reference if you haven't heard of Andy Segal:
Andy Segal
Major Titles
2007 World Champion
2007 Masters Champion
2006 World Cup of Trick Shots Champion
2005 Comet Classic Champion
2005 Masters Champion
2004 Las Vegas Open Champion
2004 Northeastern Open Champion

JoeyA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top