Gimmicks?

Monstermash

Monstermash

Lock Ness Monster
Silver Member
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.
 
There is a reason a large % of professional pool players use a low deflection shaft....it performs better! You can get more (english) with less (effort). You can get a more solid hit on the cue ball (don't have to go out as far on the cue ball with the tip) to get the same result as using a regular shaft. Plus IF you have to "juice" the cue ball severely, you can!
 
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.
 
I've seen several custom cue makers selling their own laminated shaft designs.

One thing that I did notice is that the width of the shaft and the tip make a huge difference. I have an OB-1 and I love it. It is very consistent and has low deflection. The width is probably down to 12.5mm by now. I've been using it since 2006. Recently I purchased a new custom cue and the shaft is currently at 13.2mm because my cue maker wants to give it time before taking it down more. I noticed that the wider tipped shaft deflects more than my OB-1 and even more than the other regular shafts that I have that are just under 13mm. So I guess that when it comes to deflection, there is a little bit of hype going on out there, BUT, when it comes to feel and consistency, I think that the special shafts do stand out.
 
Same discussion, different day.

mosconiac said:
The level of dogged ignorance that exists in pool is staggering. There are some shining examples in this very thread.

Collectors will spout off that their "high end", low volume cue is without parallel (such and such's cues hit a ton!)...yet brag later that the same cue has never been chalked!

These people faithfully ignore empirical evidence that proves that a lowly LD shaft outperforms their cue of choice. I guess it justifies their cash outlay.

I have a simple experiment that anyone can perform on their own to vividly demonstrate relative performance of their equipment. The following cuetable will give you the setup that you can replicate on your table of choice.

The cuetable is failing to show properly, so here's a screenshot.

LDshaftcuetable.jpg


BTW, here's a post I made over a year ago that still illustrates my opinion on the subject of golf versus pool.
Click to expand...
 
...and another from a year before that.

mosconiac said:
I love the guys that hate on the low squirt shafts. Those same guys existed in the dark ages of golf. They were devotees to their trusty 'hickories'...solid wood drivers, center-weighted spoon irons, & brass blade putters with hickory shafts...while everyone else was outperforming them with metal shafts & cavity back irons. Time will slowly erase that mentality from pool as it did with golf.

asstdclubs1.jpg

bagger_vance.jpg
Click to expand...
 
nancewayne said:
There is a reason a large % of professional pool players use a low deflection shaft....it performs better! You can get more (english) with less (effort). You can get a more solid hit on the cue ball (don't have to go out as far on the cue ball with the tip) to get the same result as using a regular shaft. Plus IF you have to "juice" the cue ball severely, you can!
Click to expand...

Pros play with whatever product sponsor PAY them to play with. Earl Strickland used a Cuetec at one point. Do you think thats a better cue because a pro used it?
 
The problem with the experiment above, is that it does not consider the pivot point, which is critical to actual performance.

I don't see how a low deflection shaft provides a superior alternative to someone using a standard shaft, bridging at the pivot point, and using backhand english.

Perhaps someone can explain how.
 
mosconiac said:
...and another from a year before that.
Click to expand...

This is just what I mean about gimmicks. "Lower squirt"? Lol. That all started as a marketing gimmick by Predator years ago.

With golf it's not that same thing. If you believe it is then consider this. The materials being used in golf clubs are considerably different than what was used even a few years ago. Through research they have found titinium and other materials to be far superior than that of wood for drivers and fairway clubs. Where with cues, it's wood. The best cues/shafts will almost always certainly be made of wood. Many have tried to use different materials and failed. Cuetec again is a good example with fiberglass and all those crappy cues that tried to use aluminum. Lol.
 
Monstermash said:
Pros play with whatever product sponsor PAY them to play with. Earl Strickland used a Cuetec at one point. Do you think thats a better cue because a pro used it?
Click to expand...


folks have used that argument in golf for years....Pros DO NOT play with stock "of the shelf" stuff period. If I could go to the Cuetec factory and pick from thousands of cues, and/or have them make one EXACTLY the way I want it to play/feel....I'd play one too. There's a reason if you ever see pro issued "production" stuff for sale on eBay it costs more than something you could pick up at Dick's Sporting Goods (even if they say they are the exact same model - driver, putter, irons, etc.). I'm sure the same holds true in pool. Pros may get paid for playing a certain "brand/cuemaker", but their options within that brand are not the same as yours and mine in most cases.

BTW, I could not and would not try playing Tigers clubs right out of his bag - we play a different game, but he could surely still shoot under par with my bag.....that's a whole 'nother post though.

It's their LIVELYHOOD, they need to win to get endorsements (including from their equipment manufacturer) - they won't play something that'll jeopardize that. Cuz in most cases the $$$ they get for playing said equipment isn't what pays the bills...winning is.
 
Last edited:
Monstermash said:
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.
Click to expand...

What is it that you feel is gimmicky about LD shafts? Are you saying that they do not work at all, and in fact deflect the same amount as your other shafts? Please elaborate.
 
nancewayne said:
There is a reason a large % of professional pool players use a low deflection shaft....it performs better! You can get more (english) with less (effort). You can get a more solid hit on the cue ball (don't have to go out as far on the cue ball with the tip) to get the same result as using a regular shaft. Plus IF you have to "juice" the cue ball severely, you can!
Click to expand...

Low squirt shafts produce less squirt. That's all. They don't produce more spin.

But less squirt is a significant performance advantage.

pj
chgo
 
mosconiac said:
Same discussion, different day.
Click to expand...

This experiment (if you want to call it that) is not accurate. It doesn't take into effect the human element. There is no way possible to replicate the exact same stroke consistantly enough to provide conclusive results. Can you come close? Well maybe, if your an "A" player or someone with amazing talent. There is no way for this experiment to be performed by the average player with consistant results.


You also fail to mention the tip on the cue and what the rest of the cue is made with. What material is the ferrule? What kind of tip on each of the cues?

You could get a little closer to accurate results if you used the same butt section and switched shafts providing they had a ferrule of the same material and the tip was the same. But even then it's not conclusive because tips are made of leather and the consistancy cannot be verified either. And don't forget to take into account the diameter of the shaft and the taper. Are they exactly the same? I didn't think so.

Furthermore, becasue wood grows natural the consistency of each shaft can be called into question. As proof just look at all the different weights of shafts. They may have the same diameter and the same taper but the weight can vary over 1/2 oz. between each shaft.
 
Cameron Smith said:
What is it that you feel is gimmicky about LD shafts? Are you saying that they do not work at all, and in fact deflect the same amount as your other shafts? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...


Please see my last post.


Also, I didn't say they didn't have some advantages, just not what the exaggerated claims are. Forget anything to do with deflection in regrds to these shafts. The only benifit I can see is that they may have a better resistance to warping because of their construction. However, with that being said, if the wood is properly dried and aged you shouldn't have a problem with warpage.

I'm curious if you know why these shafts came about in the first place. The truth is that many production cue makers had a problem with shaft warping because they didn't have time to wait for a shaft to properly age and/or they didn't want to invest extra money in better shaft wood. The demand was too much for them and the laminated shaft was initially developed so that they could cut the shafts quicker and speed up production time.
If you listen to any good custom cue maker they will tell you they spend a great deal of time picking out shaft wood. A lot of what they buy gets thrown away because it isn't good enough for them.
 
The problem with the experiment above, is that it does not consider the pivot point, which is critical to actual performance.
Click to expand...

The experiment shows what happens if you don't pivot, which is what it's meant to show. Showing that also shows where the pivot point is.

The pivot point isn't critical to the shaft's performance; it's simply a measurement of its performance. It can be critical to your own performance with that shaft if you use backhand english, but otherwise it isn't critical. What it measures (squirt) is always critical to your performance, of course.

pj
chgo
 
Forget anything to do with deflection in regrds to these shafts. The only benifit I can see is that they may have a better resistance to warping because of their construction.
Click to expand...

The important phrase there is "that I can see".

pj
chgo
 
...the laminated shaft was initially developed so that they could cut the shafts quicker and speed up production time.
Click to expand...

Lamination has nothing to do with low squirt. You're mixing apples and oranges.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Low squirt shafts produce less squirt. That's all. They don't produce more spin.

But less squirt is a significant performance advantage.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Just curious, what exactly defines a "low squirt shaft"? Is it taper? Construction method? Denseness of the wood?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top