I reason I asked, was that although you didn't mention which series of predator Z shaft you 'tested', I have played with 2 for countless years and hit the 3 a good amount. Both of them in my experience do not squirt the CB nearly as much as the Revo 12.4. The Z3 is of course closer to the Revo, but the Z2 has the lowest deflection of any production shaft I've hit by a decent margin. The only CF shaft I have been exposed to that gets close to the Z2 is the Jacoby 11.8, but still notably squirts the ball more.
Deflection Tests
- Thread starter hang-the-9
- Start date
The old timers played 14.1 on the rack half of the table using soft strokes where deflection is "just less"
Well who this? Showing skill at 3C before I was born?
Skill without gimmicks
Skill without gimmicks
Last edited:
Funny, today I was playing and i had my Willie Hoppe titilst conversion cue with me- the shaft was made for the butt by the cue maker- Cues Directly- Dave Brainard- the shaft is 13MM, ultraskin S tip, and the shaft is a little on the stiff side, and very straight. I remembered this post from a day or two ago and just for kicks hit a few balls just as the OP set up his shots to measure deflection.
On every shot the CB hit just about dead center on the OB - so I assume then this shaft has virtually no deflection- a plain maple shaft. I used a totally different cue yesterday- plain maple shaft- and did not measure it's deflection with this test. Yet, I did not knowingly aim any different with either cue and still had about the same success rate in pocketing balls - I never think about deflection when playing- maybe many years of playing helps one adjust to a cue almost immediately- I don't know but won't spend much time thinking about it either.
On every shot the CB hit just about dead center on the OB - so I assume then this shaft has virtually no deflection- a plain maple shaft. I used a totally different cue yesterday- plain maple shaft- and did not measure it's deflection with this test. Yet, I did not knowingly aim any different with either cue and still had about the same success rate in pocketing balls - I never think about deflection when playing- maybe many years of playing helps one adjust to a cue almost immediately- I don't know but won't spend much time thinking about it either.
That's why I ask - it's not always obvious how big "a tip" is.Well, given a 12.75mm tip and a 2.25 inch cue ball, I’d guess over 100%…
pj
chgo
That's pretty unlikely, especially with a 13mm solid maple shaft, unless swerve counteracted all the squirt. With maximum side spin the pure squirt (with no counteracting swerve) produced by a shaft like that would be 3 inches or more over that distance (pivot length <14").
A test like Dr. Dave's (shorter, harder shot with a more level stick) is more accurate.
pj
chgo
Why hasn't anyone considered natrual pivot point into this test? Every shaft has one. All of them are different. I will assume all tests were done with the same length fulcrum point?
If the bridge length was 10 inches for all, redo the test with all cues with a 7 inch and a 14 inch fulcrum and see if the results change. I think they will.
That is correct, but if you are a world class 8,9,10 ball player ; then your position play should be good enough that you would not have many long shots either. One should be getting the CB within 2 feet or so of just about every shot. So if you get good enough in your position play- no matter what the game, you are not shooting many shots where the CB is more than a couple of feet from the OB- deflection should not be a big factor in your game at all.
And it's the shot I use to show beginners what squirt is. If I'm in a joking mood, I'll switch in a shaft that you have to aim considerably to the wrong side of the ball. Really. Not just full, but out in the air on the wrong side of the ball. I'm hoping someday someone will say, "I don't care how much squirt a cue has, I can play with anything."
That's fantasy land. Nobody plays that good all the time. Playing 9b on a big table deflection is a problem.
So- giving ball in hand to a World Class player- you see them being more than 2 away from each shot as they run the table? I don't. Nobody said "all the time" -- but they certainly do get within a few feet of the OB most of the time- if they are world class in position play- not talking shotmakers- talking world class position players. That is really not too difficult to do on an open table if you are world class-
I was responding to the person who said that the old time 14.1 players did not have to worry much about deflection BC they played a half table game- and were close to their OBs- I agree with them and was just further stating that today's world class rotation players mostly should be able to get the CB close enough to the OB as well ( within a few feet) - and I see that they do - of course not "all the time". I doubt any of them see deflection as a "problem".
The Revo has pretty much 0 deflection, it hit the cueball full in the face. To get any less it would go to the opposite side of the hit LOL
Of course all the tests were done with the name stroke I use for all my shots, otherwise it's not really a "test" if you change the variables for different shafts or shots. Same shot, different shafts is the only way to see how they react.
I don't see how it's possible with real world physics for a standard shaft, especially a full 13mm one to hit that ball dead center with any sort of spin. I would guess you were adjusting same as you do on your normal spin shots. Anyone else around that can test this shaft with you?
It won't. Any 13mm maple will squirt quite a bit with english.
Yes you guys are probably right- I think that I have played so long with these maple shafts that even trying to do a deflection test- I just naturally compensate when I shoot - but I guess then that is a good thing- at least for me, knowing that I can go off to the side on the CB but still hit my aiming point at a long distance. Perhaps that is why I never saw a personal need to change over. I was just relaying my results from my attempt- and I trust your statements on deflection - I guess playing with wood shafts for 50 + years is a deflection vaccine
I agree. You adjust to any cue.
Yes you guys are probably right- I think that I have played so long with these maple shafts that even trying to do a deflection test- I just naturally compensate when I shoot - but I guess then that is a good thing- at least for me, knowing that I can go off to the side on the CB but still hit my aiming point at a long distance. Perhaps that is why I never saw a personal need to change over. I was just relaying my results from my attempt- and I trust your statements on deflection - I guess playing with wood shafts for 50 + years is a deflection vaccine
This is why a "better" "higher end" "LD" shaft or cue does not always mean the player will play better. One needs to pick a shaft that will work best with how the individual player plays. For new players that's easy, get an LD shaft so they don't need to learn to adjust nearly as much for spin. For players that have played for years, changing shafts has as much of a chance to making them play worse as same or better. And there are cases where an LD shaft can eventually help even an experienced player, but only after weeks or months of training to use the new shaft.
IMHO, unless a player is a top A player or a Pro and just can't get any better or would only see a few % points in improvement, there is absolutely no need to be stubborn and not try other ones. If you are Bustamante, then sticking with the shaft you used is great, if you are Jim Bob playing APA for 12 years as a SL 5-7 and maybe ran a 2 pack once a year, then swapping things around is fine.
I'm saying that the Bridge length you used could have been skewed against the other shafts and in favor of another. The only way to find that out is to vary the bridge length and redo the test.