Deflection Tests

[KMRUNOUT]

Did you try this with your shafts? Setup the same shot, shoot it the same way each time, and see where you hit on the far ball.

I don’t see that information as particularly relevant to my pool game. It’s interesting I suppose, but has little bearing on how a shaft plays in my hands, with my bridge and stroke. Under those circumstances, my modified 314-3 has substantially less deflection than my 12.4 Revo. I guess from my perspective, if your tests bears that out, it is redundant, and if it doesn’t bear that out, then I’d dismiss the utility of the test. Maybe when I see you next we can try it.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[mikemosconi]

One of the best players in Omaha back in the 80's and 90's would find a house cue he liked and store it in the backroom. He was a 3M pad guy and was always sanding the shaft. I'm guessing he got about 6 months out of a cue before the shaft was too thin for him so he'd just put it back on the rack and find another one he liked. I don't know if he even owned a cue.

HA HA- those 3 M pads worked great to remove all the gunk on a house cue shaft, better than using the powder cone in the room But 3M never showed that particular usage in their advertising.

 

[ChrisinNC]

The lowest squirt shaft I've ever heard of is my 9.5mm hollow tip. It has a 20-inch pivot length, which means with maximum side spin, parallel shift and no swerve it would almost miss that ball on the end rail from 6 diamonds away.

pj
chgo

There is no dispute that an extremely thin shaft/tip like a snooker cue on a pool table has considerably less deflection than any low deflection pool cue currently on the market, but no one can play high level pool with a snooker cue if you are not Ronnie O’Sullivan.

The problem is that the slim snooker shaft/tip makes it virtually impossible to apply center ball or the exact amount of side spin you desire on the cue ball. Any virtually inevitable minute error in that precise contact point on the cue ball will result in unintentionally throwing the object ball more or less than you were planning, causing missed shots.

 

[The_JV]

In Vegas a couple of years ago I tried an LD shaft and couldn't make a ball when using side spin. Shot about 15 balls and put the stick back on the rack and said "I'll stick with maple" and have not considered an LD shaft since. If I was trying to play at my absolute highest level I would consider one but knowing what it would take to get used to it and what I want out of the game just didn't coincide with each other.

This reminded me of my switch to LD decades ago. Original 314, still have it. I think it took literally a week or two to figure out how the damn thing worked...lol

 

[The_JV]

There is no dispute that an extremely thin shaft/tip like a snooker cue on a pool table has less deflection than any low deflection pool cue currently on the market, but no one can play high level pool with a snooker cue if you are not Ronnie O’Sullivan.

The problem is that the slim snooker shaft/tip makes it virtually impossible to apply center ball or the exact amount of side spin you desire on the cue ball. Any virtually inevitable minute error in that precise contact point on the cue ball will result in unintentionally throwing the object ball more or less than you were planning, causing missed shots.

I can't tell you how many people I advised away from the Predator Z2. Extremely unforgiving shaft. ...and it's a mob handle compared to a typical snooker cue...lol

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...the slim snooker shaft/tip makes it virtually impossible to apply center ball or the exact amount of side spin you desire on the cue ball. Any virtually inevitable minute error in that precise contact point on the cue ball will result in unintentionally throwing the object ball more or less than you were planning, causing missed shots.

I can't tell you how many people I advised away from the Predator Z2. Extremely unforgiving shaft.

This is a common misperception. A thin tip is simply a fatter tip with its outermost layer removed - they contact the CB exactly the same way until you offset the tip enough to hit that outer layer (i.e., until you're near the miscue limit).

pj
chgo

 

[MrKnives]

will be giving this a try with my old McDermott, LD and Cynergy 11.8

 

[Bob Jewett]

... but no one can play high level pool with a snooker cue if you are not Ronnie O’Sullivan. ...

The best player in a 14.1 league I ran was from England. He used a snooker cue. His best run in league was 108-and-out, with his snooker cue on a GC3 as tight as the standard Diamond. Single piece cue, brass ferrule, about a 10mm tip.

Maybe he could have done better with a pool cue but I think it's more likely that he would have shot the balls straight into the bumpers.

 

[ChrisinNC]

The best player in a 14.1 league I ran was from England. He used a snooker cue. His best run in league was 108-and-out, with his snooker cue on a GC3 as tight as the standard Diamond. Single piece cue, brass ferrule, about a 10mm tip.

Maybe he could have done better with a pool cue but I think it's more likely that he would have shot the balls straight into the bumpers.

He sounds like he was/is a very proficient player, although you don’t have to spin the ball around the table nearly as much in 14.1 as in 9-ball.

Also, from what little I know about snooker, a 10mm tip is on the larger side for snooker players, where 9.5mm seems to be the more standard size. That may have been of benefit to him playing pool with it.

If the near zero deflection of a snooker cue was any advantage for playing pool, more pro pool players would have made the switch to shafts considerably less than 12mm, which very few pro players have done.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If the near zero deflection of a snooker cue was any advantage for playing pool, more pro pool players would have made the switch to shafts considerably less than 12mm, which very few pro players have done.

I believe my shaft (9.5mm, hollow) deflects less than a typical snooker cue. It deflects the CB about 3/8" per diamond (20-inch pivot length) - not what I'd call "near zero"... maybe "nearer"?

That's the amount of "pure squirt", with no swerve at all. But of course since swerve is almost always present, it can easily look like low-deflection is near zero - sometimes even negative.

pj
chgo

 

[Chili Palmer]

I should know this answer (and could've googled it but would rather have the conversation) - does the weight of the cue affect deflection? I know speed at impact will but not sure about weight.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I should know this answer (and could've googled it but would rather have the conversation) - does the weight of the cue affect deflection? I know speed at impact will but not sure about weight.

I believe only the weight in the tip end of the shaft (6-8") matters to deflection - the part that's pushed aside as the CB rotates under the tip.

Speed doesn't affect deflection itself, but more speed reduces swerve, which looks like it's increasing deflection. That's why Dave hits his shots hard in the video tests, to eliminate swerve so he's testing "pure squirt".

pj
chgo

 

[Chili Palmer]

I believe only the weight in the tip end of the shaft (6-8") matters to deflection - the part that's pushed aside as the CB rotates under the tip.

Speed doesn't affect deflection itself, but more speed reduces swerve, which looks like it's increasing deflection. That's why Dave hits his shots hard in the video tests, to eliminate swerve so he's testing "pure squirt".

pj
chgo

Duh, I knew that, thanks. I had a late night

And yep, the speed affects the deflection by eliminating swerve, that I did remember

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Duh, I knew that, thanks. I had a late night

lol

It's counterintuitive, even for seasoned players. I heard (around here someplace) that Sigel didn't believe in throw.

pj
chgo

 

[AtLarge]

The best player in a 14.1 league I ran was from England. He used a snooker cue. His best run in league was 108-and-out, with his snooker cue on a GC3 as tight as the standard Diamond. Single piece cue, brass ferrule, about a 10mm tip.

Maybe he could have done better with a pool cue but I think it's more likely that he would have shot the balls straight into the bumpers.

Andrew Barlow?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Andrew Barlow?

Yup. He's the same one who bet me he could shoot a diagonal shot on blue and draw (screw) the cue ball straight back to scratch (go in-off) in the pocket where the white started within 10 shots. 8th shot. 12-foot table. Open bridge, as would be expected. He was not afraid to spin the ball. The price of admission was worth the show.

 

[hang-the-9]

I don’t see that information as particularly relevant to my pool game. It’s interesting I suppose, but has little bearing on how a shaft plays in my hands, with my bridge and stroke. Under those circumstances, my modified 314-3 has substantially less deflection than my 12.4 Revo. I guess from my perspective, if your tests bears that out, it is redundant, and if it doesn’t bear that out, then I’d dismiss the utility of the test. Maybe when I see you next we can try it.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

Yes it's not something that a player would do to help to play better, I have never said that a shaft with less deflection is "better" than some other one, the shaft has to match how the player is comfortable playing. It's more to help new players understand how shafts work, and is a good data source for us just to have the info. It's a simple and effective test that shows how much the shaft affects how you aim with spin. And while I was doing that, I just hit the same shot with several shafts I had in my case and some other cues that were around.

This is not to say "if you play bad or good, changing to this shaft will make you better". Anyone that has played for years should already know what equipment works better than others for them. The biggest benefit of any of the pure tests of the physics is to just have some raw data and have a nice simple to understand method of having newer players, or those that never learned about shafts, grasp the concept.

Changing shafts to "play better" has about as much confusion as people lumping jump cues together with jump shots. A higher tech shaft may not help anyone, but it may help some or even many players, but people get all bent out of shape with the whole "Mosconi never used an LD shaft and look at him". Maybe he would be even better with an LD shaft, who knows? And some beginner player or even one that played for years but misses often can benefit from an LD shaft. Just like when we talk about jumping and jump cues in one lump idea, when they are totally separate thing, one is just the act of jumping over a ball, the other is a short stick made to make the jump easy, but talking about one does not mean you are talking about the other.

 

[Chili Palmer]

HA HA- those 3 M pads worked great to remove all the gunk on a house cue shaft, better than using the powder cone in the room But 3M never showed that particular usage in their advertising.

LOL, I still have mine from the 90's, it's in my old Giuseppe bag. Let's just say my lack of knowledge back then has resulted in a fairly thin shaft on the cue I used for 15 years.

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, the old timers just played- in every sport- no excuses, just look at a set of Arnold Palmer Golden Standard golf clubs from the 70s - I had a set - no comparison to today- but no excuses from the greats back then either - it was all they knew and they made it work- I think Babe Ruth used a 42 ounce baseball bat! Times change - excuses change - but greatness is based on doing it in the here and now, regardless!

Players have always been equipment conscious. And why wouldn't they be when the pool cue is their primary instrument they use after they get the "job" having made a game.

Almost every sport is much different than it was 50-100 years prior.

The fact is that we just don't know a lot about what sort of thoughts or "excuses" players had back then due to a lack of documented information.

The evolution of equipment in sports is an interesting field of study. Particularly the chicken/egg symbiosis. Which came first the player or the cue?

I mean if we study the history of our sport we see a lot of innovation and improvement of equipment from the 1800s onward. And in general when a lot of people are doing something a certain percentage of them are going to apply an engineer's mindset to the activity. A small part of the group is always actively seeking to "improve" conditions and the larger part of the group is the consumers of this activity. Thus ultimately the market coalesces around the best "stuff" through general usage.

But...... Always a but right..... What the "best" is in any given area is influenced by marketing and hype which in turn leads to recommendations by people who are really not qualified to judge.

So which came first, the performance shaft or the performance testimonial?

"Rodden Vood" George Balabushka reportedly said upon hearing a distinctive "tink" every time a certain player hit a ball with a Paradise cue while that same player was using a Balabushka to break with....

 

[mikemosconi]

HA HA - almost every "testimonial" is based on money paid by the maker of the product being touted. I guarantee you that the performance testimonial was already scripted prior to the performance shaft being used by the player who was paid to provide" testimony" on a " PERFORMANCE" shaft.