Too much for who?Jude Rosenstock said:You guys think WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much about this stuff. Just make the ball, get shape, move on. If you miss, blame yourself.
Too much for who?Jude Rosenstock said:You guys think WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much about this stuff. Just make the ball, get shape, move on. If you miss, blame yourself.
More flexibility in the shaft doesn't = less squirt. It's the weight of the tip area that matters.randyg said:Because more Deflection would equal less Squirt and vise versa.
It's just very hard to market a shaft that has more Deflection, it's easier to interchange the words and confuse a few people,,,,,,SPF=randyg
Some people like the intellectual aspect of pool as much as the game itself. To some people, undestanding how something works is just as intriguing as making it work. [i.e., Fred, PJ, MikePage, RonSheppard, Dr.Dave, etc]Jude Rosenstock said:You guys think WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much about this stuff. Just make the ball, get shape, move on.
As I understand Randy's other post, he is creating a semantic conundrum. Basically, saying deflection only applies to the shaft means that the shaft has to deflect in order for the cue ball to not squirt (either the cue ball has to squirt or the shaft has to deflect). So, with this understanding, Predator must have created a high deflection shaft because the cue ball does not squirt. This would be equivalent to the premise that less effective mass = more deflection (of the shaft).randyg said:Because more Deflection would equal less Squirt and vise versa.
That would be correct imo.td873 said:Some people like the intellectual aspect of pool as much as the game itself. To some people, undestanding how something works is just as intriguing as making it work. [i.e., Fred, PJ, MikePage, RonSheppard, Dr.Dave, etc]
I believe both perspectives are accepted in the pool world. Besides, without the thinkers, where would the new innovations come from? Phelan comes to mind...
As I understand Randy's other post, he is creating a semantic conundrum. Basically, saying deflection only applies to the shaft means that the shaft has to deflect in order for the cue ball to not squirt (either the cue ball has to squirt or the shaft has to deflect). So, with this understanding, Predator must have created a high deflection shaft because the cue ball does not squirt. This would be equivalent to the premise that less effective mass = more deflection (of the shaft).
Randy - is that what you meant?
-td
Jude Rosenstock said:You guys think WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much about this stuff. Just make the ball, get shape, move on. If you miss, blame yourself.
Jude Rosenstock said:You guys think WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much about this stuff. Just make the ball, get shape, move on. If you miss, blame yourself.
It depends on how far back you go. There is a diagram from 1839 -- in Kentfield's book, written over 160 years ago -- that shows aim-and-pivot squirt compensation. I think the fact that more recent players seem to either know nothing about squirt or think techniques like aim-and-pivot (and backhand english) are new says a lot about how likely they are to read books and the state of pool instruction in the US.3andstop said:Being from the old school, none of this deflection stuff was discussed years ago. ...
Bob Jewett said:It depends on how far back you go. There is a diagram from 1839 -- in Kentfield's book, written over 160 years ago -- that shows aim-and-pivot squirt compensation. I think the fact that more recent players seem to either know nothing about squirt or think techniques like aim-and-pivot (and backhand english) are new says a lot about how likely they are to read books and the state of pool instruction in the US.
I have a copy of an even older work that seems to be by the guy who invented the leather tip. It also seems to show aim-and-pivot squirt compensation.
3andstop said:Good points.
btw, a cluster gear is the gear set ya break when you don't use a spool.
Of course if you are running a car with a sun gear and no break, your odds of breaking a cluster gear decrease dramatically as opposed to a stiff 3 finger set up that doesn't preload the driveline.![]()
Cornerman said:I think I've got one example, and probably not more than one. There is the shot where the cueball and object ball are straight and close together. If you stroke through, a double hit is less likely if you hit with english (with a squirt-heavy cue). You can aim away from the cue ball path so that when the cueball hits the object ball, the cue tip has less chance to hit it again.
So, in my example, the only thing that squirt does is allow the cuestick to more readily get out of the way.
Fred
is this [aiming slightly off-angle] the right way to play english on the cue ball or is it better to have the cue stick parallel with the aiming angle
My diagram might be exaggerated for clarity. But, nevertheless, with a normal cue, you're going to be angled and not parallel when you hit a firm shot with english where swerve isn't going to too much in effect.vijesh said:Hi guys here is a question that i wanted to ask for long...... like the dia where you can see the cue angle is different from the aiming angle, is this the right way to play english on the cue ball or is it better to have the cue stick parallel with the aiming angle.... I hope you have got my point. As in the cue would be straight and not like the dia....
Vijesh
txplshrk said:I believe that a low deflection cue and a cue that is stiffer really don't give you that much of an edge. Now I know that people will argue this all day long, but that is just my feelings on it. I have hit with both, and I don't think there is so much of a difference that it will prevent you from making shots.
What I do think is a main driving factor is radial consistency! This game is about consistency, and to me radial consistency can only improve your game. Predator addressed radial consistency, and so has OB-1. To me this is a much bigger factor than deflection. I believe anyone can adapt to a cue's deflection, but if the cue is radial consistent then adaption to the deflection is easier!
IamCalvin06 said:Since Predator came along and provided us with low Deflection cues it seems that this is some sort of Evolution of pool b/c its supposed to make the game easier and more consistent.
However, there are alot of shots that have very little angles and i feel like the deflection is necessary in those angles to get the CB to certain positions.
Most of these shots do not come up alot but when they do show up, i believe without the right equipment you could win/lose a set.
Is playing with low delfection going to limit your game?
And what happens if you start off learning with a Predator and one day you chip a tip during match play and have to play on a loaner ?
td873 said:Some people like the intellectual aspect of pool as much as the game itself. To some people, undestanding how something works is just as intriguing as making it work. [i.e., Fred, PJ, MikePage, RonSheppard, Dr.Dave, etc]
I believe both perspectives are accepted in the pool world. Besides, without the thinkers, where would the new innovations come from? Phelan comes to mind...
As I understand Randy's other post, he is creating a semantic conundrum. Basically, saying deflection only applies to the shaft means that the shaft has to deflect in order for the cue ball to not squirt (either the cue ball has to squirt or the shaft has to deflect). So, with this understanding, Predator must have created a high deflection shaft because the cue ball does not squirt. This would be equivalent to the premise that less effective mass = more deflection (of the shaft).
Randy - is that what you meant?
-td
whitey2 said:Whew, that went over my head. I've rebuilt a top end on a car (1987 Starion!), and a lot of other
stuff, but I'm not familiar with any of the terms you used. FYI - That phrase in my signature comes
from a line in the movie "The Baltimore Bullet".
One of the main characters is a pool hustler, who borrows a mechanic's uniform while their car is
being serviced. He gets caught by someone recognizing him from a magazine, and he is trying to
convince the "marks" that he is a mechanic. One of them asks him that question, which of course
he can't answer, and his cover is blown.