blud said:
I guess I agree with what you've said, but I don't think you addressed the original poster's question. In your opinion, how does shaft whippiness vs. stiffness effect it's tendency to deflect/squirt? Or does it not effect it at all?
Does shaft stiffness/whippiness dramatically affects deflection?
- Thread starter pinoyincalgary
- Start date
I guess I agree with what you've said, but I don't think you addressed the original poster's question. In your opinion, how does shaft whippiness vs. stiffness effect it's tendency to deflect/squirt? Or does it not effect it at all?
Colin Colenso said:Hey Blud,
Actually, what I have been saying about deflection does leave the door open for explaining some effects from the butt end of the cue. This would be in terms of how forces are distributed along the cue. Dense and dried woods could make a difference. I don't think the differences are great, but are worth investigating.
In fact, when you make a cue and test it, and make changes and re-test, you are using the scientific method. You are observing and threorizing and then re-testing.
But there are efficient and inefficient ways to go about this. We need to isolate the variables to we can test them. eg: If I test two butts by hand, I have the variables of my own cueing errors and variables such as grip tightness etc. Perhaps guessing by eye what I actually happened.
We do need an analytical approach to this science of cue design. Every product in this world needs a Research and Development department.
You can argue that your scientific method is better than mine, but if you argue that science has little to do with this, you should be mining for cheese on the moon
What I don't get about this whole argument/discussion is that everybody seems to be focusing on shaft deflection, and not what really matters, which is cue ball deflection from your aiming point. IMO, once you understand that there is deflection on off center hits, you have to ‘learn’ how much the cue you are using causes and compensate accordingly. The only way I see to do this is through trial and error and practice. Of course your level of experience will determine how difficult this is. Maybe someday we'll have an electronic gizmo that will automatically calculate the compensation. Well that’s not what I want; I take pride in my skill/artistry to do this myself.
moon
You see Colin, your so raped up with science stuff, your missing the point.
Why come with scientfic reports that are meaningless to the average Joe?
Reports are meaningless, period. Won't do anything but confuse most common folks.[ pool-players]....
Labs, yes, I believe in Lab testing. It's called a pool table. That's my lab.
Try one twice and again if nessesary, until you get it right.
You see, we both have our own ways to reach an answer. My answers are correct in my way of thinking. You have your way.
Trouble is with your way of testing, it's never settled. Many differant people, and many reports over the years, and you "brains" are still not satisfided with others reports, much less your own.
So you guys keep it up, and get no where fast, after many hours of testing and coming with this and that. And it will be a 180 degrees off, of another report. If this wasn't true, why are you and a few others, reading and reporting on others findings? Then trying to convence us to believe "any" such reports, that you might run or test in your labs.
In the end, no one really cares about the end results, other than the "brains" who have waisted much time, for nothing. Honking there own horns, to tell the world "how" smart they are.
.
Mean while, the rest of us, will be playing better pool, making our adjustments, because were in the pool-room, and not doing math on cues.
blud
Colin Colenso said:Hey Blud,
Actually, what I have been saying about deflection does leave the door open for explaining some effects from the butt end of the cue. This would be in terms of how forces are distributed along the cue. Dense and dried woods could make a difference. I don't think the differences are great, but are worth investigating.
In fact, when you make a cue and test it, and make changes and re-test, you are using the scientific method. You are observing and threorizing and then re-testing.
But there are efficient and inefficient ways to go about this. We need to isolate the variables to we can test them. eg: If I test two butts by hand, I have the variables of my own cueing errors and variables such as grip tightness etc. Perhaps guessing by eye what I actually happened.
We do need an analytical approach to this science of cue design. Every product in this world needs a Research and Development department.
You can argue that your scientific method is better than mine, but if you argue that science has little to do with this, you should be mining for cheese on the moon
You see Colin, your so raped up with science stuff, your missing the point.
Why come with scientfic reports that are meaningless to the average Joe?
Reports are meaningless, period. Won't do anything but confuse most common folks.[ pool-players]....
Labs, yes, I believe in Lab testing. It's called a pool table. That's my lab.
Try one twice and again if nessesary, until you get it right.
You see, we both have our own ways to reach an answer. My answers are correct in my way of thinking. You have your way.
Trouble is with your way of testing, it's never settled. Many differant people, and many reports over the years, and you "brains" are still not satisfided with others reports, much less your own.
So you guys keep it up, and get no where fast, after many hours of testing and coming with this and that. And it will be a 180 degrees off, of another report. If this wasn't true, why are you and a few others, reading and reporting on others findings? Then trying to convence us to believe "any" such reports, that you might run or test in your labs.
In the end, no one really cares about the end results, other than the "brains" who have waisted much time, for nothing. Honking there own horns, to tell the world "how" smart they are.
.
Mean while, the rest of us, will be playing better pool, making our adjustments, because were in the pool-room, and not doing math on cues.
blud
To blud
As to Blud, i think a great cuemaker has deflection and everything else relating to the performance of the cue in mind when they make the whole cue, just my .02.
Personally, in talking about the whole cue, once picking up a good one, I realized that the predator and the meucci felt like well...two peices. Layani said before I ordered my scruggs that the cue, if properly made for the person should feel like an extension of the players arm.
So the scruggs (as I suspect other well made and tailored cues do), as opposed to the meucci and predator production cues feels like not two separate peices, but one 'instument', an extention of my arm and when in my hand stroking, it flows like water down a stream
. Not that my stroke is perfect, but the cue sure seems to be.
It is nice to not be able to blame my mistakes on the cue.haha
Laura
As to Blud, i think a great cuemaker has deflection and everything else relating to the performance of the cue in mind when they make the whole cue, just my .02.
Personally, in talking about the whole cue, once picking up a good one, I realized that the predator and the meucci felt like well...two peices. Layani said before I ordered my scruggs that the cue, if properly made for the person should feel like an extension of the players arm.
So the scruggs (as I suspect other well made and tailored cues do), as opposed to the meucci and predator production cues feels like not two separate peices, but one 'instument', an extention of my arm and when in my hand stroking, it flows like water down a stream
. Not that my stroke is perfect, but the cue sure seems to be. It is nice to not be able to blame my mistakes on the cue.haha
Laura
catscradle said:
Usually it does because most cues with a euro taper are thinner at the ferrule and have reduced mass at the end of the shaft. THe big difference that you will get from the two tapers is the amount of vibration. Most pro tapers are 15" taper with 14 " straight shaft. the straight part of the shaft is going to vibrate when it strikes the cue ball. The conical taper in the euro shaft will reduce vibration in the shaft and create better contact with the cue ball and produce more spin. A shaft that is very whippy is inconsistant. A shaft that is one piece will have a tendency to bend more in one direction than the other depending on the direction of the grain, this is magnified in a whippy shaft.
I read alot of post on here about the importance of deflection. It is not the be all end all of the pool game. And yes you can learn to shoot quite well with a shaft that deflects more than it should. But if I can buy a shaft or anything that is going to improve my chances and consistancy of pocketing balls then why not have one? You dont have to have one,but I do!
The weight of the back part of the stick doesn't have much effect on because it doesn't change the weight of the part of the stick that is pushed aside (referred to as the effective end mass).catscradle said:
Bob, can you explain effective end mass w/more detail. It sounds interesting.
judgement
Hey Rocky,
You say, you can learn to shoot quite well with a shaft deflecting more than it should? More than it should? Bad statement, sir....
Who will set the "bench mark" on how much, is to much????????????????
In who's opinion, that it, deflects more than it should? Yours, mine, or whoevers opinion.
We all look at things differantly. So how can that statement apply to any of us?
No one, will ever be able to tell us which is best. It's easy to figure out, will my opinion, or yours fit all folks. Of course "NOT"........
Then, who's to claim that it's the perfect shaft? And will they be correct, or will it be just another "OPINION" and labs test?
What fits you, may not fit a single sole, or fit dozens and dozens of folks. Who knows for sure? Answer, "No one"......
blud
rocky said:
Hey Rocky,
You say, you can learn to shoot quite well with a shaft deflecting more than it should? More than it should? Bad statement, sir....
Who will set the "bench mark" on how much, is to much????????????????
In who's opinion, that it, deflects more than it should? Yours, mine, or whoevers opinion.
We all look at things differantly. So how can that statement apply to any of us?
No one, will ever be able to tell us which is best. It's easy to figure out, will my opinion, or yours fit all folks. Of course "NOT"........
Then, who's to claim that it's the perfect shaft? And will they be correct, or will it be just another "OPINION" and labs test?
What fits you, may not fit a single sole, or fit dozens and dozens of folks. Who knows for sure? Answer, "No one"......
blud
Enough
This is an ongoing theme...Defliction...who cares...
Play pool...
At the end it all comes down to your skills.... Once you get use to your cue you will adjust!!! Many others have said this already....we need to stop with this crap... Everyone has an opinion...if you like Predator shafts or any other products that make you play better (LOL) start a club....
As for me I will take my cue and head over to the pool room and practice....
This is an ongoing theme...Defliction...who cares...
Play pool...
At the end it all comes down to your skills.... Once you get use to your cue you will adjust!!! Many others have said this already....we need to stop with this crap... Everyone has an opinion...if you like Predator shafts or any other products that make you play better (LOL) start a club....
As for me I will take my cue and head over to the pool room and practice....
True but those who shoot 8-ball on barbox and feel they need to spend money on unconventional shafts have to justify that cost.
It boggles me that on a BARBOX 8-ball, one would even think he needs a non-conventional shaft to play with.
Take that player to a 9-footer and make him beat the 4-ball ghost. He might not beat it.
drivermaker
Banned
blud said:
That is a super good point. But, might I add, even moreso than that, how much is any given cue deflecting to begin with? There is no bench mark or standards on anything. You have one group of people that are doing it by hand through pivot point measurements and they're getting something totally different when another person does the same test, or, even when they shoot and their stroke is off from one try to the next and they have to go on an "average". Then, you have Platinum billiards doing what they say is independent and unbiased testing with a robot setup. Their figures are coming out less than the pivot point testers and quite a bit different. The inaccurate pivot point testers are claiming that Platinum Billiards is off the mark, when THEY are more apt to be off the mark due to human foibles. Then, you have EVERYONE bashing Bob Meucci and his robotic testing device because they say that he's skewing the test to make his own product come out on top. That having been said, how much more or less is one cue deflecting than any other cue? You can also change the results with the shape of the tip, so now where do you go.
IT DOESN'T MATTER...learn what your cue is doing; learn how to use backhand english; practice, practice, practice; play, play, play. Unless you're using a metallic ferrule, there is NO "more than it should deflect". They're ALL within tolerable ranges and easy enough to adapt to, it's just not that big of a deal.
weight
Hi Bob,
I got to totally disagree,sir.
It's like driving a 16 penny nail with a 12oz, hammer or change to a 2lb., hammer. End results, more mass moving, and that will sir, change the shafts action. All parts of the cue, do affect the action of any cue.....Any part of the cue, does affect it's play. Any qualified cuemaker will tell you this..Maybe not a big change, but a change.
Most cue butts come in around 15.4 oz's, along with a shaft at 3.7 oz's. Rounded out at 19.1 oz..Using the same shaft, put it on a butt that's 12.0 oz's, or even heavier at maybe, 17.5 or 18.0 oz's, then make your statement. Might be supprised, my friend..
All of my shafts are inter-changeable. I take one shaft and put it on a differant butt of a differant weight, and guess what, it plays a little differantly, and acts a little differantly than the first one that was lighter or heavier.....
I don't understand how some folks can make statements and they are not qualifided cuemakers and appear that they know nothing about cue construction. Cuemakers as a whole, are good self-taught engineers, for the most part.
They work on cues to make them play there best, in there opinion. And this is there opinion, not someone elses.
Most of the folks who write about this and that, are always reffering to a paper that someone has written. Taking some guys word on what's what.[ is the guy qualified or not, just because he's some sort of brain?].
Proff is in the puddin, guys, try the cue, if you like it spring for it. Don't worry about what any report says, because it will not apply to all folks, and or all cues.
You guys can come with your reports, and do you really think you can make any of us change our thinking and the construction of our cues. Try it with , scruggs, schick, ernie, stroud, joey gold, kikle, or even me.....don't think it will ever happen.
Again, it ain't broke, fellows..........
blud
BTW Bob, we play with "CUES", not sticks.....
Bob Jewett said:
Hi Bob,
I got to totally disagree,sir.
It's like driving a 16 penny nail with a 12oz, hammer or change to a 2lb., hammer. End results, more mass moving, and that will sir, change the shafts action. All parts of the cue, do affect the action of any cue.....Any part of the cue, does affect it's play. Any qualified cuemaker will tell you this..Maybe not a big change, but a change.
Most cue butts come in around 15.4 oz's, along with a shaft at 3.7 oz's. Rounded out at 19.1 oz..Using the same shaft, put it on a butt that's 12.0 oz's, or even heavier at maybe, 17.5 or 18.0 oz's, then make your statement. Might be supprised, my friend..
All of my shafts are inter-changeable. I take one shaft and put it on a differant butt of a differant weight, and guess what, it plays a little differantly, and acts a little differantly than the first one that was lighter or heavier.....
I don't understand how some folks can make statements and they are not qualifided cuemakers and appear that they know nothing about cue construction. Cuemakers as a whole, are good self-taught engineers, for the most part.
They work on cues to make them play there best, in there opinion. And this is there opinion, not someone elses.
Most of the folks who write about this and that, are always reffering to a paper that someone has written. Taking some guys word on what's what.[ is the guy qualified or not, just because he's some sort of brain?].
Proff is in the puddin, guys, try the cue, if you like it spring for it. Don't worry about what any report says, because it will not apply to all folks, and or all cues.
You guys can come with your reports, and do you really think you can make any of us change our thinking and the construction of our cues. Try it with , scruggs, schick, ernie, stroud, joey gold, kikle, or even me.....don't think it will ever happen.
Again, it ain't broke, fellows..........
blud
BTW Bob, we play with "CUES", not sticks.....
Balance vs deflection sort of
I bought an old falcon cue awhile back from FL for our daughter. It is a 17oz with slight front balance with a regular maple shaft (small tip diam like 11.5). He sent us the predator shaft that fit it too. It shifted the balance back past a mid balance to a slight back balance. Now that is one heck of a shift.
I guess if a person is okay with a backweighted cue, then the predator is a good choice. But with that bored out part, noone has told me that I could get the balance I wanted which was slight front balance with that predator shaft on the front. So I left that up to the cue maker I had confidence in.
Correct me if I am wrong here, Blud. That is, if a person likes a forward balance then the predator shaft is out of the question?
Laura
blud said:
I bought an old falcon cue awhile back from FL for our daughter. It is a 17oz with slight front balance with a regular maple shaft (small tip diam like 11.5). He sent us the predator shaft that fit it too. It shifted the balance back past a mid balance to a slight back balance. Now that is one heck of a shift.
I guess if a person is okay with a backweighted cue, then the predator is a good choice. But with that bored out part, noone has told me that I could get the balance I wanted which was slight front balance with that predator shaft on the front. So I left that up to the cue maker I had confidence in.
Correct me if I am wrong here, Blud. That is, if a person likes a forward balance then the predator shaft is out of the question?
Laura
balance
Hi Laura,
Not nessesarly so. The predator shaft weighs more than a normal maple shaft does. The glue adds more weight. Balance depends also on the weight of the butt.
I balance my cues a little forward, making it easier to draw or follow with top english. With that in mind, you don't have to evelate the rear of the cue to draw the heck out of the ball, nor get way up on top for follow shots. much easier to control either of these shots, with forward balance.Any time you can get closer to "CENTER" ball, the more control you will have.
blud
Bluewolf said:
Hi Laura,
Not nessesarly so. The predator shaft weighs more than a normal maple shaft does. The glue adds more weight. Balance depends also on the weight of the butt.
I balance my cues a little forward, making it easier to draw or follow with top english. With that in mind, you don't have to evelate the rear of the cue to draw the heck out of the ball, nor get way up on top for follow shots. much easier to control either of these shots, with forward balance.Any time you can get closer to "CENTER" ball, the more control you will have.
blud
OK. Where's your data? Have you ever measured a pivot point? Do you even know what I mean by pivot point?blud said:
As for your comment, just get used to your cue and adjust, that's certainly true, but for some players it's much easier to adjust to a stick -- I use that word because "cue" alone is too often ambiguous -- with a particular amount of squirt. Anyone who has played for thirty years with a heavy ferrule and lots of english will be very unhappy with a low-squirt stick such as a Predator. On the other hand, a good case can be made for starting a beginner with a relatively low-squirt stick.
whitewolf said:
What I'm referring to in the below statement is "cue ball" deflection from your aim point. I'm in agreement that a shaft will bend/deflect upon impact with a cue ball.
<< What I don't get about this whole argument/discussion is that everybody seems to be focusing on shaft deflection, and not what really matters, which is cue ball deflection from your aiming point. IMO, once you understand that there is deflection on off center hits, you have to ‘learn’ how much the cue you are using causes and compensate accordingly >>