How much does low deflection really matter?

[MuchoBurrito]

Let's say for the sake of argument that we rank three shafts from lowest to highest deflection (I'm not saying necessarily that this is the case, just for the sake of argument).

1) Predator Z
2) OB-2
3) Lucasi Zero Flex

Will a random or generic player perform BETTER with the lower deflection shaft?



I have to think that whatever amount of deflection your shaft causes, it's always a matter of learning to adjust to your shaft, regardless of the how much deflection there is. It seems to me that elevating your game is much more a matter of learning to adjust to the deflection.

For instance, the Predator Z series is hugely popular in my area among amateurs. However, I see very few professionals playing the Z shaft.

So at the end of the day, provided you're playing with some kind of low-deflection tech shaft (ie. any of the above brands, and then some), objectively speaking, does it really matter?

 

[saint1]

shafts

The answer from me, NO. From those who play with them, yes.

 

[brentinps]

IMHO, cue ball squirt is a huge problem with beginners & amateurs, esp since many have mechanic errs such as not keeping the cue level/elevated shaft hits.

Therefore, any tech that would greatly reduce/eliminate cueball squirt and mis-hits has got to make a huge difference, esp. if all things being equal. And it is.... most misses I see in league play are from squirts, or using too little or too much r or l english, for those players thata use more english in thier game.

My move from high quality maple to LD shafts such as the Jacoby Edge hybrid on my Schon or Jacoby really made a huge difference in league play, as I found I was missing less shots, shooting less innings in a game. etc. I would say that not only was I making perhaps 20 percent more of my shots, I was also gaining confidence.. which is a key factor that should not be overlooked as well.

In addition, I can use english with effect on the cue ball, getting it to move, without much, if any adjustment in a shot or effect on the object ball path.

Several days ago, I helped a team member get his first cue buy, and he was a very good player that made the move to a McD LD shaft I-2, from basic maple McD shaft on his other cue (i.e. not even a G-core shaft), and he did not have to practice much to see improvement. He could not believe how much better the hit felt.. night and day difference. He plays a lot of english and I did not know how he would adjust. He got the cue the night before a match in league play and destroyed his opponent the next day, smiling. Now I would NEVER have done that,... I would have used the cue I was more used to... but he made a seamless change.

So.... I feel that technology is Huuuuge (as Trump would say). It just makes sense and holds logic in an arguement (although Trump does not always use logic or make sense.... not to get too political)

 

[billiardthought]

Low deflection matters some, but less than normal,

 

[Johnnyt]

I see no need for LD shafts, and a joke to use one for a BB. Johnnyt

 

[Poolplaya9]

Will a random or generic player perform BETTER with the lower deflection shaft?

Part of the answer is no, and part of the answer is possibly but there isn't enough evidence to be able to say for sure. Let me explain.

At the highest levels of pool, there is no improvement that comes from low deflection shafts. The evidence for this is enormous. For starters, the very best pool possible, just absolutely perfect pool and perfect matches have been played with both. Both types of shafts are capable of playing better pool than people are capable of.

Then you have the fact that many of the players that are considered to be the best alive today, or even the best of all time, were not or are not using low deflection shafts. Efren Reyes, Willie Mosconi, and Shane Van Boening are just a few examples. Who do you consider to be the best player of all time in each game? Chances are the person you name as the best of all time in each game was using a standard deflection shaft. Now ask yourself who is currently the best player in each game? Again, chances are just about every guy you name is using a standard deflection shaft. Standard deflection shafts sure didn't seem to hold back the best of all time, and they sure aren't holding back the best of today.

You also have examples of top players that have played with both types of shafts while at the tops of their games. If one type of shaft was clearly superior to the other then you would expect to see a noticeable difference in their games while using each type. But you don't see that at all. What you see is that their level of play is the same either way. Alex Pagulayan I believe is an example off the top of my head. I believe he has used both at various points, and plays the same killer top speed either way. It makes no difference to their level of play.

There are some that say that a lesser player will play better with a low deflection shaft over a standard shaft though. Possible, but there certainly isn't any conclusive evidence for it yet.

There are some that say that a beginner will improve faster with a low deflection shaft over a standard shaft. Possible, but there certainly isn't any conclusive evidence for it yet.

So the answer, based on actual evidence, is that no, low deflection shafts are not better, except maybe, possibly, in some cases for some lesser players, but we just don't know for sure yet and the evidence certainly doesn't confirm anything like that at this point. Now every low deflection shaft user is going to say that they play better with low deflection shafts, and I am sure many are going to attest to just that in this thread, but there is a good chance it is often just in their mind, and they really don't play any different than before, or if they did have some actual improvements it was due to other factors besides their low deflection shaft.

On the flip side, Bob Jewett is a huge proponent of low deflection shafts and their benefits (as is Dr. Dave I believe). While I don't believe the currently available evidence really supports those beliefs, they are brilliant guys and when they say or believe something, you listen, so maybe there is something to it, at least for lesser players. For high level players I think the evidence is already pretty clear and convincing.

 

[9Ballr]

Will a random or generic player perform BETTER with the lower deflection shaft?

I hate LDs absolutely hate them.
So FOR ME the answer is a resounding NO!!!!
It's just a matter of what get used to.

I play with a lot of guys who use these shafts and we're all
at about the same level.

Efren couldn't hit anything with them, same for Bustamente and
Strickland....I think.
Bunch of the new Oriental players hate using them too.

If you like it get it, if not be happy that you never caught the
"LDs help you perform better" lie.

Besides if you have - or ever buy - a custom cue why ruin it with
the muted feeling of an LD?
What would be the point?

Besides it doesn't matter if you have an LD or a solid maple shaft
you're always going to have to compensate anyway.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Let's say for the sake of argument that we rank three shafts from lowest to highest deflection (I'm not saying necessarily that this is the case, just for the sake of argument).

1) Predator Z
2) OB-2
3) Lucasi Zero Flex

Will a random or generic player perform BETTER with the lower deflection shaft?



I have to think that whatever amount of deflection your shaft causes, it's always a matter of learning to adjust to your shaft, regardless of the how much deflection there is. It seems to me that elevating your game is much more a matter of learning to adjust to the deflection.

For instance, the Predator Z series is hugely popular in my area among amateurs. However, I see very few professionals playing the Z shaft.

So at the end of the day, provided you're playing with some kind of low-deflection tech shaft (ie. any of the above brands, and then some), objectively speaking, does it really matter?

As you may imagine this topic has been beaten to death. Most people seem to overlook the simple answer.

Where you intend to strike the cue ball is not always where you strike the cueball. I can't tell you how many times you see someone hit right english and argue that no, I hit left. But you're watching the ball spin the other way.

Let's say it again: where you mean to hit the ball is not always where you hit the ball. This effect is obviously much more pronounced among amateur players. Pros hit much closer to where they intend on the cue ball more frequently.

Why does this matter? If you intend to hit center ball, but accidentally hit 1 tip of right english, your cue ball will deflect to the left. At any sort of distance, with a standard shaft, you are going to miss that ball. Why did I miss? I thought I lined it up perfectly. You missed because of deflection. Had you made the same cueing error with a LD shaft, maybe that time you *don't* miss because the cue ball doesn't squirt as much.

Get it? So the point of LD is not necessarily that you can go nuts with english and still make the ball. The point is that amateurs do not hit the cue ball where they intend to hit the cue ball quite often actually. Therefore the average amateur will miss fewer shots with a LD shaft. This isn't about what "feels best for one player vs what feels best for another player", or "as long as I learn the shaft I have the deflection doesn't matter" kind of thing. This is an objective fact about LD shafts. The aiming errors resulting from poor cueing are reduced in a LD shaft. That is not subjective. It is not an opinion. It is a demonstrable, provable, and for those with common sense, *obvious* fact! Now, how much that reduced error *benefits* a person is very much dependent on their skill level. For a top pro who hits the cueball *VERY* accurately almost every time, the error reduction of a LD shaft will benefit them very little, since they can, as some argue, adjust to the way their particular shaft deflects rather consistently. For almost *everyone* else, the LD shaft will benefit quite a bit. The greatest benefit would of course come to the player that is all over the cue ball and can't even accurately hit the correct hemisphere of the ball. If you mean to hit left and you hit right, a LD shaft might be a BIG help for you.

This seems like obvious common sense, but I feel confident that several posters will shoot down my argument with irrelevant tangents that have no bearing on what I'm saying here. If you understand what I'm saying, you will see that it is a fact. Curious what people have to say about this.

KMRUNOUT

 

[LuckyStroke]

As you may imagine this topic has been beaten to death. Most people seem to overlook the simple answer.

Where you intend to strike the cue ball is not always where you strike the cueball. I can't tell you how many times you see someone hit right english and argue that no, I hit left. But you're watching the ball spin the other way.

Let's say it again: where you mean to hit the ball is not always where you hit the ball. This effect is obviously much more pronounced among amateur players. Pros hit much closer to where they intend on the cue ball more frequently.

Why does this matter? If you intend to hit center ball, but accidentally hit 1 tip of right english, your cue ball will deflect to the left. At any sort of distance, with a standard shaft, you are going to miss that ball. Why did I miss? I thought I lined it up perfectly. You missed because of deflection. Had you made the same cueing error with a LD shaft, maybe that time you *don't* miss because the cue ball doesn't squirt as much.

Get it? So the point of LD is not necessarily that you can go nuts with english and still make the ball. The point is that amateurs do not hit the cue ball where they intend to hit the cue ball quite often actually. Therefore the average amateur will miss fewer shots with a LD shaft. This isn't about what "feels best for one player vs what feels best for another player", or "as long as I learn the shaft I have the deflection doesn't matter" kind of thing. This is an objective fact about LD shafts. The aiming errors resulting from poor cueing are reduced in a LD shaft. That is not subjective. It is not an opinion. It is a demonstrable, provable, and for those with common sense, *obvious* fact! Now, how much that reduced error *benefits* a person is very much dependent on their skill level. For a top pro who hits the cueball *VERY* accurately almost every time, the error reduction of a LD shaft will benefit them very little, since they can, as some argue, adjust to the way their particular shaft deflects rather consistently. For almost *everyone* else, the LD shaft will benefit quite a bit. The greatest benefit would of course come to the player that is all over the cue ball and can't even accurately hit the correct hemisphere of the ball. If you mean to hit left and you hit right, a LD shaft might be a BIG help for you.

This seems like obvious common sense, but I feel confident that several posters will shoot down my argument with irrelevant tangents that have no bearing on what I'm saying here. If you understand what I'm saying, you will see that it is a fact. Curious what people have to say about this.

KMRUNOUT

Perfectly said. I agree 100%.

Ben

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Then you have the fact that many of the players that are considered to be the best alive today, or even the best of all time, were not or are not using low deflection shafts. Efren Reyes, Willie Mosconi, and Shane Van Boening are just a few examples.

You are seemingly not aware that SVB has been sponsored by Cuetec for many years now, and shoots with the R360 shaft, which most assuredly is a LD shaft.

You are also seemingly not aware that Willie Mosconi did not choose a standard shaft over a LD shaft. That option didn't exist in his era. Citing him as an example of why one should use a standard shaft is the same as suggesting that Christopher Columbus sailing across the ocean is a good example of why an airplane is not a better way to cross the ocean.

Using Efren in *any* example begs the question: "how many Efren's are there?". What Efren does or would do is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of players who do not have his super human gifts.

Just something to consider.

KMRUNOUT

 

[LuckyStroke]

Part of the answer is no, and part of the answer is possibly but there isn't enough evidence to be able to say for sure. Let me explain.

At the highest levels of pool, there is no improvement that comes from low deflection shafts. The evidence for this is enormous. For starters, the very best pool possible, just absolutely perfect pool and perfect matches have been played with both. Both types of shafts are capable of playing better pool than people are capable of.

Then you have the fact that many of the players that are considered to be the best alive today, or even the best of all time, were not or are not using low deflection shafts. Efren Reyes, Willie Mosconi, and Shane Van Boening are just a few examples. Who do you consider to be the best player of all time in each game? Chances are the person you name as the best of all time in each game was using a standard deflection shaft. Now ask yourself who is currently the best player in each game? Again, chances are just about every guy you name is using a standard deflection shaft. Standard deflection shafts sure didn't seem to hold back the best of all time, and they sure aren't holding back the best of today.

You also have examples of top players that have played with both types of shafts while at the tops of their games. If one type of shaft was clearly superior to the other then you would expect to see a noticeable difference in their games while using each type. But you don't see that at all. What you see is that their level of play is the same either way. Alex Pagulayan I believe is an example off the top of my head. I believe he has used both at various points, and plays the same killer top speed either way. It makes no difference to their level of play.

There are some that say that a lesser player will play better with a low deflection shaft over a standard shaft though. Possible, but there certainly isn't any conclusive evidence for it yet.

There are some that say that a beginner will improve faster with a low deflection shaft over a standard shaft. Possible, but there certainly isn't any conclusive evidence for it yet.

So the answer, based on actual evidence, is that no, low deflection shafts are not better, except maybe, possibly, in some cases for some lesser players, but we just don't know for sure yet and the evidence certainly doesn't confirm anything like that at this point. Now every low deflection shaft user is going to say that they play better with low deflection shafts, and I am sure many are going to attest to just that in this thread, but there is a good chance it is often just in their mind, and they really don't play any different than before, or if they did have some actual improvements it was due to other factors besides their low deflection shaft.

On the flip side, Bob Jewett is a huge proponent of low deflection shafts and their benefits (as is Dr. Dave I believe). While I don't believe the currently available evidence really supports those beliefs, they are brilliant guys and when they say or believe something, you listen, so maybe there is something to it, at least for lesser players. For high level players I think the evidence is already pretty clear and convincing.

SVB, as far as I know, shoots with a R360 shaft, which is a LD shaft. Supposedly, he changed the ferrule which is where a lot of the LD characteristics come from.

IMO, you should play with whatever suits your stroke. It may take a very long time to find the tip-ferrule-shaft combo that suits you best. But you have to try them all to find it

Ben

 

[john coloccia]

The aiming errors resulting from poor cueing are reduced in a LD shaft. That is not subjective. It is not an opinion. It is a demonstrable, provable, and for those with common sense, *obvious* fact!

If your error comes from your stroke, i.e. your grip hand, and I suspect a good number of errors do, then your statement is completely wrong unless you use an enormous bridge length. If you're interested, there are numerous resources that discuss the concept of back hand english, bridge length and deflection.

 

[Gorramjayne]

This seems like obvious common sense, but I feel confident that several posters will shoot down my argument with irrelevant tangents that have no bearing on what I'm saying here. If you understand what I'm saying, you will see that it is a fact. Curious what people have to say about this.
KMRUNOUT

I actually have to disagree. LD will actually make it harder to pocket balls if your botch your stroke. Supposing you line up with your tip placement where you need it then accidentally hit a tip or two off-center, it's likely because you pulled your stroke off-line.

With a standard shaft, if you accidentally pull your stroke to the left (common for right handed players when they accidentally pull across their body) the cue ball will squirt back to the right, closer to where you meant to go in the first place. At shorter distances and moderate to fast pace, swerve will be negligible and you may well pocket the ball. This is how 'pivot english' works, where you do this intentionally to hit an english shot that is automatically compensated for squirt.

With an LD shaft, the cue ball more readily goes in the same line as your cue, so if you pull your final stroke to the side, you're just plain going to miss, and swerve will make it even worse.

If you intend to use sidespin, however, using parallel english, and don't pull your stroke, LD makes it a lot easier to contact the object ball where you intend to.

I remember my first time using a skinny LD, I was missing all over the place. I was about ready to walk up to the desk and tell them to put me on a level table because that one was clearly in bad shape. Then I put my standard shaft on and lo and behold balls flew into the pockets. Whoopsie, looked like my stroke wasn't as pure as I had thought. Look at snooker cues, those are inherently very LD, and it's very hard to hit a straight rolling shot.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

If your error comes from your stroke, i.e. your grip hand, and I suspect a good number of errors do, then your statement is completely wrong unless you use an enormous bridge length. If you're interested, there are numerous resources that discuss the concept of back hand english, bridge length and deflection.

I'm well aware of all that you reference here. Think it through. People make a LOT of different stroking errors. I don't know how much APA you have played, but I've played a lot. Trust me when I say that some of the lowest ranked players in the league have enormous creativity when it comes to finding unique new ways to miss a ball.

Regardless, under *no* circumstances is my statement "completely" wrong. In the vast majority of cases, it is not at all wrong. It's only been up here for a few minutes. Like I said, give it some thought and get back to me. Or don't. Either is fine. For example, do you think everyone sees the center of the cueball as the center of the cueball? Some people are totally convinced that a tip of right english is dead center ball. That is how it looks to them. LOTS of errors come from places other than your grip hand.

Best wishes,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I actually have to disagree. LD will actually make it harder to pocket balls if your botch your stroke. Supposing you line up with your tip placement where you need it then accidentally hit a tip or two off-center, it's likely because you pulled your stroke off-line.

With a standard shaft, if you accidentally pull your stroke to the left (common for right handed players when they accidentally pull across their body) the cue ball will squirt back to the right, closer to where you meant to go in the first place. At shorter distances and moderate to fast pace, swerve will be negligible and you may well pocket the ball. This is how 'pivot english' works, where you do this intentionally to hit an english shot that is automatically compensated for squirt.

With an LD shaft, the cue ball more readily goes in the same line as your cue, so if you pull your final stroke to the side, you're just plain going to miss, and swerve will make it even worse.

If you intend to use sidespin, however, using parallel english, and don't pull your stroke, LD makes it a lot easier to contact the object ball where you intend to.

I remember my first time using a skinny LD, I was missing all over the place. I was about ready to walk up to the desk and tell them to put me on a level table because that one was clearly in bad shape. Then I put my standard shaft on and lo and behold balls flew into the pockets. Whoopsie, looked like my stroke wasn't as pure as I had thought. Look at snooker cues, those are inherently very LD, and it's very hard to hit a straight rolling shot.

You actually don't *have* to disagree. But, as predicted, someone did, and it was you.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Poolplaya9]

You are seemingly not aware that SVB has been sponsored by Cuetec for many years now, and shoots with the R360 shaft, which most assuredly is a LD shaft.

I had forgotten the R360 was considered low deflection. So substitute in Earl Strickland or Big Ko or Orcullo or any number of other examples in Shane's place for current or all time best players who used standard deflection shafts. And move Shane over as another example and yet more evidence of someone like a Pagulayan who has used both types of shafts and where there is zero evidence that he plays any better because of the low deflection shaft. He plays the same killer high level with either shaft, just like Alex, and just like every other pro that has used both types of shafts for any length of time.

You are also seemingly not aware that Willie Mosconi did not choose a standard shaft over a LD shaft.

I was well aware of that and it is immaterial to the point. The point is that at least as high levels of pool if not higher have been played with standard shafts. If low deflection shafts were inherently better, you would see the top of the charts dominated by low deflection shaft users. You would see the best pool played with low deflection shafts. You don't see any of that. The type of shaft seems to make no difference.

Citing [Mosconi] as an example of why one should use a standard shaft is the same as suggesting that Christopher Columbus sailing across the ocean is a good example of why an airplane is not a better way to cross the ocean.

Re-read my post because you clearly didn't read it carefully or take the time to comprehend it the first time. Nowhere did I argue that one should use standard shafts. What I argued was that at the highest levels of play that low deflection shafts clearly are not superior and the type of shaft doesn't seem to make any difference.

Using Efren in *any* example begs the question: "how many Efren's are there?". What Efren does or would do is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of players who do not have his super human gifts.

Again, the point is that the highest levels of pool can be played with standard shafts. That was true back when there were only standard deflection shafts, and that is still true today when there are tons of both and standard deflection shafts still to this day are not being outperformed by low deflection shafts.

 

[john coloccia]

I'm well aware of all that you reference here. Think it through. People make a LOT of different stroking errors. I don't know how much APA you have played, but I've played a lot. Trust me when I say that some of the lowest ranked players in the league have enormous creativity when it comes to finding unique new ways to miss a ball.

Regardless, under *no* circumstances is my statement "completely" wrong. In the vast majority of cases, it is not at all wrong. It's only been up here for a few minutes. Like I said, give it some thought and get back to me. Or don't. Either is fine. For example, do you think everyone sees the center of the cueball as the center of the cueball? Some people are totally convinced that a tip of right english is dead center ball. That is how it looks to them. LOTS of errors come from places other than your grip hand.

Best wishes,

KMRUNOUT

My APA experience? Exactly zero, but I see them playing.

I've been playing, and watching people play, for 30 years....ever since I was a wee lad. Some years back, before the LD revolution was in full swing, I drifted away from the game and stopped playing seriously. I'm recently back to it, with the LD revolution over, and I haven't noticed a difference. People play like they always have.

I would bet that LD shafts, at the amateur level, are responsible for as many misses as they prevent.

Do you golf? To me this feels like the difference between blade putters and fancy putters. I have both. I can give you all the advantages of the fancy putter, very similar in fact to the advantages of an LD shaft, but the simple fact of the matter is it's completely irrelevant to my actual performance. I putt best with the putter I practice with, whichever that happens to be at the time.

 

[9Ballr]

The aiming errors resulting from poor cueing are reduced in a LD shaft.

This isn't just wrong it is very wrong, especially considering some
beginners might one day read this.
Sounds like the Predator break cue pitch. Shoot however you want to
with our shaft the cue ball always goes straight....lol

But anyway, I know this, I have a lot of LD shafts in my closet and used
to shoot with them all the time when this hype was new - yes I bought
into it all the way - I can't hit worth a dang with those shafts.
I simply always shoot a much better game with sold maple shafts,
AND my stroke faaaar from perfect.
Still get better ball control, english, all that stuff from a solid maple.
All you gotta do is spend time getting used to how much you need to move
your right hand to the side to compensate and you're good to go.
Then as new LDs come out with more broken promises - 13% less
deflection, stiffer... etc...this and that - you won't have to relearn everything again.

 

[Gorramjayne]

All I know is that LD forced me to address errors in my stroke that I wouldn't have known existed if I'd kept on with standard shafts. Once fixed, it allowed me to take advantage of options I wouldn't have tried with a standard shaft, like a long force-follow with heavy sidespin. Could I win the same number of racks with a standard shaft? Yup, probably, I would choose my shots differently. I'd certainly hit long stop shots with more confidence with a standard shaft.

Bustamante and Reyes are bad examples to hold up of people "not needing" LD. They have big loopy strokes and that would not respond well to LD at all. I'm surprised SVB gets away with LD (although R360 is not that finicky). Then you look at guys like Appleton and Hohmann with clinically straight and precise strokes and for them LD certainly makes sense.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If you intend to hit center ball, but accidentally hit 1 tip of right english, your cue ball will deflect to the left. At any sort of distance, with a standard shaft, you are going to miss that ball. You missed because of deflection. Had you made the same cueing error with a LD shaft, maybe that time you *don't* miss because the cue ball doesn't squirt as much.

For almost *everyone* else, the LD shaft will benefit quite a bit.

You are correct in that this is a benefit. The problem is that the benefit derived from this is not even remotely close to as consequential as you think it is. You might make a couple more shots out of hundred that you would have other wise missed. For 98+% of the shots though, if you would have missed them with a standard shaft, you would have missed them with a low deflection shaft too. Keep in mind how small the contact patch is on the object ball that will result in the ball being pocketed. It is tiny. Also keep in mind how much deflection the low deflection shafts have, which is still actually quite a bit. People tend to think of them as no deflection shafts, and they aren't even remotely close to that. They still deflect a lot. Most balls that you miss with a standard shaft would have also failed to go in with a low deflection shaft.

You also ignored the pivot points that can make standard shafts have lower and even no deflection a lot of the time, the fact that you lose feel with low deflection shafts, the fact that you can't shoot as many of the more accurate full cue jumps shots with a low deflection shaft and therefore you jumping success will be affected, the fact that low deflection isn't necessarily always better for accuracy every time as Gorramjayne pointed out and sometimes a standard shaft will pocket a ball on a cueing error that the low deflection would have missed on, etc, all of which allow the standard shafts at times to pocket shots that the low deflection shaft would have missed. There are many drawbacks to low deflection shafts and many benefits to standard deflection shafts that you ignored and didn't take into consideration.

So they both save some shots at various times for differing reasons, but which one nets out as better overall? As I said in a previous post, for less skilled players we just don't know for sure as there just isn't any clear evidence one way or the other, just a lot of theory and conjecture but no actual legitimate clear evidence. What is clear is that there is never a "huge" benefit with either type and if one type is ever better than the other for a particular individual it is only be a very small amount. It could even be that a low deflection shaft is very slightly better for one guy and very slightly worse for the next guy. So for top players the evidence is overwhelming, there is no practical difference. For lesser players we don't know if one is always better than the other, or if standard deflection is better for some people and low deflection is better for others, but we do know that if one is ever better than the other that the difference is very small.