TheThaiger
Banned
You eliminate deflection, fair enough, but what about swerve? Don't you just substitute one problem for another?
Diameter of shaft
- Thread starter oldgame
- Start date
You eliminate deflection, fair enough, but what about swerve? Don't you just substitute one problem for another?
How did we jump from my tip size to the general merits of low squirt?
Anyway, I didn't eliminate squirt; I reduced it. And the CB swerves the same with or without squirt, so it isn't substituted for squirt; it's just more obvious with less squirt. And I think when there are two interacting variables reducing one makes coping with both easier.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
TheThaiger
Banned
You misunderstand. You eliminate deflection (I don't care what you say, I have shafts with no discernible deflection whatsoever), but a smaller diameter tip produces more swerve.
What you gain in less deflection, you lose in more swerve. The net result is still to compensate.
Sorry, but neither of these statements is true. No shaft is squirt-free (it's physically impossible), and no tip produces more swerve than another (what would be the reason?).
It's easy to think this, primarily because (1) we don't "discern" accurately without controlled testing and (2) swerve masks some squirt.
But you're mistaken.
pj
chgo
TheThaiger
Banned
About what? That I don't adjust for deflection with some of my shafts? Or that a smaller tip produces more swerve?
Mistaken on neither. I suggest you take your 9mm shaft and play some snooker. Then, play a full table length drag shot, with a lot of left or right English. Then do the same with a 12.75 LD shaft and see which swerves the CB the most.
About both.
- You adjust for squirt without realizing it (often because swerve masks it, as I said).
- For identical hits on the cue ball, smaller tips don't produce more swerve - how on Earth would they?
I'd be glad to listen to any objective rationale you have for either belief, but how it seems to you is notoriously unreliable evidence.
pj
chgo
It people are using or visualizing "tips" of English, it could make a difference. Also, if the smaller tip is rounder than the larger tip, which might be the case, the same cue alignment will result in different tip contact points and effective offset from center. For lots of info and illustrations related to this topic, see:
Regards,
Dave
TheThaiger
Banned
How so? Perhaps you could come up with some examples?
As you won't, obviously, we'll get back on track. How on earth can a smaller tip NOT produce more swerve? You want proof, go get a broomstick and see how much swerve you get on the ball. A smaller point of contact on the CB delivers the power of the stroke in a more concentrated way.
Go and do my snooker table test. It's even more pronounced on an English pool table, with a 1.75" CB. 7-8mm tips swerve the CB far more than my 11.75mm Z shaft, even.
TheThaiger
Banned
Correct, sir.
All that means is that if you hit farther from center with any tip, large or small, you'll get more spin and more swerve. That's why I was careful to say "for identical hits on the CB".
A smaller tip does not produce more spin or swerve than a larger one.
pj
chgo
- Follow through puts more spin on the cue ball.
- Tip/CB contact time is increased by "accelerating through" the CB.
- Hitting harder produces more squirt.
I could go on.
Obviously.
By not doing anything different to the CB than a larger tip does.
What do you suppose a smaller tip does differently to the CB? Don't forget to say how (inadvertently hitting a different spot on the CB doesn't count).
pj
chgo
Agreed. I was just suggesting several reasons why some people might think otherwise.
Regards,
Dave
TheThaiger
Banned
Just to be clear, if I had a shaft that was the exact size as the CB, and applied as much english as I possibly could, the CB would swerve the same amount as if it had a 8mm tip. Is that what you're suggesting?
Your 'identical hits on the CB' is a disingenuous cop-out.
TheThaiger
Banned
Your examples are unfamiliar to me. I generally don't get involved in such nerdiness as CB/tip contact time and follow through creates more spin (whatever that means), and can't recall commenting on them.
The only one of your examples that I even vaguely recognise is deflection being greater with a harder shot. That is my experience and I'll stick with what I see with my own eyes over what you tell me to be true.
So, I'm still waiting for some examples of 'notoriously unreliable evidence' - this time, stuff I've actually said, please.
TheThaiger
Banned
I've told you 'how'. The power of the stroke is concentrated into a smaller area on the CB, giving a more precise hit.
Have you actually tried my snooker test? Or the English 8 ball one?
No? Oh.
SOME of us actually play this game, Patrick. Some of us experiment and see what happens when you play the same stroke with different sized balls and different sized tips. Others just like to talk, Patrick.
A smaller tip doesn't concentrate the power of the stroke into a smaller area on the CB. Look at the chalk marks - they're about the same size with any tip. And even if it did, what makes you think that would matter?
Let's try not to get childish.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
You can hit all the spots on the CB with any normal size tip, from the largest to the smallest. If your argument is that hitting different spots on the CB produces different results, than all I can say is "duh".
Is that really all you've been arguing?
pj
chgo