Gimmicks?

[Patrick Johnson]

I must be confused then. I thought that was the whole premiss behind the Predator marketing.

Are you talking about marketing or performance? You seem to be using them interchangeably, but of course they're not the same thing.

Predator markets lamination for its "radially consistency". Laminated shafts may be slightly more radially consistent, but that doesn't seem to matter much to a shaft's performance, so that's mostly gimmick.

Predator does other things (primarily hollowing the shaft) to reduce squirt, and they work for that purpose. Reduced squirt is not a gimmick, although it matters more to some than to others.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Just curious, what exactly defines a "low squirt shaft"? Is it taper? Construction method? Denseness of the wood?

Squirt is reduced by reducing the mass (amount or density of material) near the tip. That's usually done by hollowing the shaft (Predator), reducing its width or reducing the size of the ferrule (which is denser than the wood).

This is discussed over and over again here. You can learn a lot about it by searching the forum archives.

pj
chgo

 

[CreeDo]

I am a very skeptical person about sticks too. I shot with a house cue for years and I probably will never spend 200 bucks or more on a cue.

With that being said, I tried a low deflection predator shaft and noticed the difference immediately. It wasn't my imagination and it wasn't that I fell for their marketing hype. The shaft is different and the result when you hit the cueball with sidespin is different. It's not a tiny subtle difference either, it's enough that you might miss the entire ball on a long shot with loads of sidespin.

With the low deflection shaft, the cue ball pretty much went exactly where I aimed despite all the english I put on it. I aimed the shot like a centerball hit. If you've played for a while without this kind of shaft, then it might be labelled a matter of preference. Do you want to make the shot by compensating an inch or two in your aiming line, or do you want to make it by just aiming where you want the cue ball to go? Right now I can do either about equally well because of years of experience accounting for deflection. But if I could start again and relearn pool from scratch I'd want to do it with an LD shaft.

 

[Pushout]

With the low deflection shaft, the cue ball pretty much went exactly where I aimed despite all the english I put on it.

My experience was the exact opposite. I was very lucky to ever get the cue ball where I wanted it, no matter how I hit it.

 

[Cornerman]

I must be confused then. I thought that was the whole premiss behind the Predator marketing.

If this is what you're basing you're entire thread, then I suggest that you either graciously bow out or read/ask what makes them different.

Fred

 

[CreeDo]

My experience was the exact opposite. I was very lucky to ever get the cue ball where I wanted it, no matter how I hit it.

Really? Weird, which shaft was it?
Do you think it was definitely shoving the ball somewhere different? Or were you still compensating somewhere in the back of your head for deflection... so even though you think you're aiming straight at the ball you're actually cutting a little more or less?

 

[Pushout]

Really? Weird, which shaft was it?
Do you think it was definitely shoving the ball somewhere different? Or were you still compensating somewhere in the back of your head for deflection... so even though you think you're aiming straight at the ball you're actually cutting a little more or less?

314. Didn't seem to matter how I compensated, I simply could not run balls with it. Center ball or with english. I'd either miss or make the ball and not come close to where I wanted to be. It was a real disappointment. I have to admit I'd be willing to try one again, but due to the financial situation, it won't be for a while, I'm afraid.
I've posted before, elsewhere in other threads, that I have since played with a Meucci Black Dot and had no problems. The Black Dot didn't perform any better than my custom cues, of which I had three or four at the time, so I sold it. But I played better with it than the predator.
Note: I do play with smaller shafts than some, 12 1/2 mm. I wasn't aware of it being any easier to apply english.

 

[Rich93]

To the OP: I admire your willingness to stick your neck out.

My advice is to read Professor Kingsfield's posts, er, I mean Patrick Johnson's posts, and you'll learn something. One of these days I expect PJ will say "Here's a dime. Call your mother. Tell her you will never become a real pool player." [This ancient reference is for my fellow old-timers who remember John Houseman and that 1973 movie].

There are a lot of marketing gimmicks when it comes to cues. Check out the big colorful spreads in Billiards Digest to see them. Low deflection shafts, however, are not one of them. They do lower cue ball squirt.

 

[mtdsports]

i think one thing to keep in mind about the LD shafts is the fact that a lot of these pro's will be playing with damn near a different cue at every tournament. one thing that these shafts can provide to them is the consistency required to keep playing top level even with a new cue. or maybe i'm just way off point here.

 

[kaznj]

advances in technology. new machinery, new ways to reduce deflection, these are not gimmicks.

 

[qbilder]

What happens when the shaft becomes an immovable object, say in the hands of a tense player who keeps a tight closed bridge & compact stroke? Has there been any unbiased & very thorough tests? I understand the physics behind deflection. It's a science but not a rocket science. They certainly favor the long fluid stroking players. But for the guys who play a tight, compact game, they seem to serve little to no advantage. Either the cueball deflects or the end of the shaft deflects. It's simple. In a perfect world with no variables, we can assume the object with the least mass will deflect the most. This is where the science of the LD shafts comes into play. But somewhere in the grey mist is the player. Where he bridges & how tight his bridge is & how stiff his shaft is will have at least as much influence on deflection as tip end mass. Without this very real & evident variable being included in the marketing propoganda that appears as if it's concrete science, then it leans toward the LD shafts being gimmic. I tense, compact stroking player could most definitely try one & then feel dissapointed & think it was a gimmic.

That said, I don't beieve the LD shafts are gimmic. They do indeed lower deflection in "some" players' game by having lower tip end mass than the typical shaft. There's lots of engineering & technology involved in the splicing. For certain, the shafts will be warp resistant & have a higher degree of uniformity in the 360 degree flexural strength. So if nothing else, they don't warp often & they are pretty dang consistent 360 degrees. The radial consistency alone can certainly enhance a player's game, even if only minute.

 

[pwd72s]

I wouldn't say they are gimmicks, but I think they are drawn up to be more than they really are. People just need to find a cue that feels good to THEM and say f-it to everything else. Spend 200 dollars on table time not a cue, that will make you better.

Extremely well said! I too, searched for that magic cue...the one that never missed. It's funny how I recently discovered that the more I shoot, the more I concentrate, the less I miss. Too bad I'm not all that good, but really it's about table time. The more time I spend, the more likely I am to see improvement.

 

[Monstermash]

If this is what you're basing you're entire thread, then I suggest that you either graciously bow out or read/ask what makes them different.

Fred

No offence to you but I do know what makes them "different". I have had many discussions with custom cue makers in the past with one just yesterday just as a refresher.

The funny thing is that the Predator shaft has a hole drilled in the end and a light weight ferrule and thats the big technological breakthrough. Lol.

It's all about physics. The "lighter" of the two objects will deflect when they collide thus reducing deflection. In theory that is what the Predator shaft is designed to do. It would have been completely the opposite without the light weight ferrule and the hole drilled in the end as the lamination would have made the shaft stiffer thus increasing deflection. Now that have this "fat shaft" in addition to their other products. So how exactly is that supposed to work? Do they drill an ever bigger hole?

In the interest of privacy I won't say which cue maker said it but here is a quote from our conversation....

"if you want to make your own “low deflection shafts” drill the hole and use a very short thin wall ferrule on a thinner diameter shaft."

WOW! What a huge technological break through! And to think you can get all that for around $200. ROFL.

 

[CreeDo]

qbilder: I might be wrong on how the physics works here... but I think the player's grip and even his bridge length doesn't have anything to do with it... at the moment of impact the tip his the ball with a certain amount of force, and the shaft then bends or doesn't bend.

What happened before that (like how much his closed bridge chafed while he brought the stick forward, or he uses a very short bridge like Hopkins) doesn't matter. If there's enough force to make the ball and get shape then the stick will 'deflect' the same no matter what bridge the player chose to use. You can't put a death grip on the stick and somehow stop the shaft from bending, stifling all vibration and preventing the shot from having reduced squirt. The shaft has to be 'free' and not 'gripped' when stroked fully enough to do that 3-rail-position shot or whatever it is you're shooting.

So, I'd say the low deflection properties are there no matter kind of funky compact bridge and stroke you use. I'll admit I may not fully understand it, that's just what intuition is telling me.

And monstermash, you look down on this innovation because it seems so simple, but the fact is a LOT of major innovations are so incredibly simple when you boil them down... little improvements in everything from airplanes to automobiles to atom bombs. Just because it's simple doesn't mean it doesn't work or it's easy to implement. If it's that easy, please go a get a makita drill and a house stick and make your own low deflection shaft. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Cornerman]

No offence to you but I do know what makes them "different". I have had many discussions with custom cue makers in the past with one just yesterday just as a refresher.

The funny thing is that the Predator shaft has a hole drilled in the end and a light weight ferrule and thats the big technological breakthrough. Lol.

It's all about physics. The "lighter" of the two objects will deflect when they collide thus reducing deflection. In theory that is what the Predator shaft is designed to do. It would have been completely the opposite without the light weight ferrule and the hole drilled in the end as the lamination would have made the shaft stiffer thus increasing deflection. Now that have this "fat shaft" in addition to their other products. So how exactly is that supposed to work? Do they drill an ever bigger hole?

In the interest of privacy I won't say which cue maker said it but here is a quote from our conversation....

"if you want to make your own “low deflection shafts” drill the hole and use a very short thin wall ferrule on a thinner diameter shaft."

WOW! What a huge technological break through! And to think you can get all that for around $200. ROFL.

I can't seem to see any focus of your post.

First you were discussing lamination as the big secret (which the rest of us already knew it is not). Now you are discussing the hole, as if you knew it all along, but then bring back the lamination (which tells me you really don't know what's going on). If you don't know, that's cool.This is a good place to find out.

You told us to flame away. I'm not flaming away. I'm telling you that you could use more information. You're either not getting all the information from your cuemaker friend, or you're not understanding him. We can help, if you're really asking for information. If you're not really asking for information, then that's too bad.

Then you mock the products by saying that you can get that all for $200 (and then you roll on the floor laughing).

How much do you think a good shaft costs? Considering the additional work on the shaft, is $200 too high in your world? Some cuemakers are selling their shafts for that much or higher with nothing more than their attention to quality.

And if you wanted find out how to make your own low deflection shaft, we've known here on this board so long that many cuemakers found out from reading these boards. That's right. If it wasn't for discussion on these boards, 99% of all cuemaker wouldn't have a clue as to what make "lower squirt."

Fred <~~~ doesn't think "talking to a cuemaker" means anything more than getting an opinion

 

[Nostroke]

I know this thread is going to elicit a lot of response but I'm willing to take the risk. So feel free to flame me but keep in mind it's just my opinion.

Why is everyone so hung up on all these gimmick shafts? I mean Predator this and OB that. And forget about the Meucci red/black dot shafts. What a joke that is. Come one guys, you need to recognise a sales gimmick when you see one. If there was really something to it you would see the top cue makers in the world using them. Maybe I'm way off base here but I have yet to see a Southwest, Schick, Bender, etc. come with a radially laminated shaft.

I'm sorry if I offended any of you with my comments but I'd like to hear what others think.

Gimmick shafts? says who?

What evidence have you found that these shafts do not perform as well as a standard shaft?

 

[Cornerman]

What happens when the shaft becomes an immovable object, say in the hands of a tense player who keeps a tight closed bridge & compact stroke? Has there been any unbiased & very thorough tests? .

Yes, there have been. The Jacksonville Project showed that if the cuestick was held rigidly by a robot, then lower mass at the end of the shaft didn't matter. I could go through the physics, but that's been done. Key terms are false increased contact time and speed of transverse wave.

What they did theorize was that the human hand and its flesh could never approach the rigidity of a robot hand. So, they used a buffer of bubble wrap between the stick and robot to isolate the cuestick.

That being said, has there been a test that truly tried to mimic a rigidly held human hand. I don't believe so. It would be an interesting thing if we could get that human gel stuff that the Myth Busters use to mimic human flesh. My guess is the same as those that did the Jacksonville Project: that the human hand's flesh can't be considered rigid ever, regardless of how tight it's being used. It will act as a spring.

But, that's just theory.

Fred

 

[Patrick Johnson]

the lamination would have made the shaft stiffer thus increasing deflection

A stiffer shaft doesn't appreciably increase deflection. This stuff has all been tested extensively.

"if you want to make your own “low deflection shafts” drill the hole and use a very short thin wall ferrule on a thinner diameter shaft."

WOW! What a huge technological break through! And to think you can get all that for around $200. ROFL.

And yet yesterday you knew nothing about it.

pj
chgo

 

[Dead Crab]

Why are these LD shafts sold without instruction books?

What is the optimal way to use them?

and.....(I ask once again)...how is an LD shaft superior to someone using a standard shaft, bridging at the pivot point, and using backhand english?

Provide a good answer for the last question, and I'll buy one of them.

 

[Cornerman]

Why are these LD shafts sold without instruction books?

What is the optimal way to use them?

and.....(I ask once again)...how is an LD shaft superior to someone using a standard shaft, bridging at the pivot point, and using backhand english?

Provide a good answer for the last question, and I'll buy one of them.

IMO, they're not superior.

However, for those that haven't gotten a hold of a pivoting or systematic approach to adjusting for squirt, a low deflection shaft might be perfect for them. Also, for those starting out, they might get to a point of "using english" at a quicker pace than with a normal shaft. I'm not saying this is desirable or not desirable. It just is.

All that being said, there used to be lot of professionals that used a low squirt shaft that have returned to a normal shaft. However, there are also a lot of professionals who have stayed with the lower squirt shafts and swear by them today.

To each their own... different strokes for different folks... whatever floats your boat... etc.

Fred