How much does low deflection really matter?

Maybe even more to the point is distinguishing between shaft performance and player performance. I don't think there can be any doubt that in terms of the cue ball going where you aim it (assuming a good stroke), LD shafts clearly have an objective performance edge. I haven't seen any real evidence that this translates into an overall performance advantage for the player, which maybe suggests that squirt is not the huge big deal people make it out to be. Perhaps you just kind of get used to what you have and then move on to more important things.
 
Lesh said:
The Original Poster hit the nail on the head out of the gate.

It really is just a matter of adjusting to the amount of squirt (deflection) a particular shaft induces.

Ones ABILITY to do so accurately and quickly is where people start losing their ever-loving minds. They use euphemistic language and seditious statements like "well, in some way it does matter kinda sorta if you look at it with the light just right."

DO NOT BE CONFUSED by these charlatans, soothsayers and heretics. There is only you, your CHOSEN equipment and the box. Let none put this asunder. Pick a shaft and hit some balls. Stay in the box and never ever look up.

With all humility,

Lesh
Click to expand...

A big +1 for this. People don't realize how capable the human body and mind can learn even the hardest tasks and make the seemingly hardest adjustments without consciously thinking about them. It is only when you keep all the math in your conscious brain that your subconscious brain gets confused. It's like receiving two orders, the imprecise calculations of the conscious versus the undeniable knowledge of the subconscious. By telling yourself deflection is bad and must be eliminated, you are telling yourself that you cannot overcome deflection and you have lost the war, no shaft is gonna fix that. By constantly changing the parameters, you don't give your subconscious a chance to make the adjustments rote.
 
Here's my experience. I've been playing for about 25 yrs. About the first 15 yrs with traditional shafts and the last 10 yrs or so with LD shafts. I've spent substantially more time at the table with traditional shafts (pre wife & 3 kids) than with LD shafts.

I objectively shoot better with LD shafts (higher straight pool runs, better performance against the ghost in 9 ball). I think it just suits my style of play a whole lot better. I've never been much of a center ball player and I think that's why it's particularly of benefit to me.

That said, I've gone through a lot of cues and shafts over the years (typical quest for the perfect cue) and all the setups I've enjoyed playing with the most have been with traditional shafts. I didn't play as well with them but I just enjoyed playing with them a whole lot more.

Those are the two sides of the coin for me. I objectively play better with LD shafts, but I enjoy traditional shafts more. Now I'm in my 40's with a wife, 3 kids and pretty demanding job so I'm limited in the amount of table time I have a week. Practicing more with a traditional shaft to hit the performance I'm seeing with an LD shaft isn't really an option anymore.

I've now landed on a weird setup that's really working for me. 10.75mm solid shaft with a european taper and thin joint (so the taper isn't as aggressive and isn't crazy stiff). Performance is strong and I'm enjoying playing with it so i'll stick to it.

That's my $.02.
 
Quick question: When you switch between LD and traditional shafts, do you know if you consciously or subconsciously add or reduce cue elevation to obtain your desired results? OR, do you keep your cue elevation the same using either shafts.

Oh yeah, didn't you write billiard articles for magazines as well?

BTW, Royce was one of my favorite people in the pool industry and I told him so a long time before he passed. I always like your posts and enjoy your company. You're what's good for pool. Okay, there.... Cornerman...check.....

JoeyA

Cornerman said:
Thank you, Joey.

Yes, I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and to the best of my memory, I was the first Mechanical Engineer to describe on these internet boards the transverse wave concept in reference to the amount of mass in effect of the collision due to the offset hit 15 years ago. I had in depth discussions with the late Royce Bunnell on this idea, and though it took some explaining, he most certainly understood it enough to be able to describe it himself on these boards. Almost word-for-word. Believe me when I say how much that makes me happy.

I also did a year and half study with the 314 shaft as my primary shaft, which I posted some 15+ years ago on RSB.

I own over 20 LD shafts.

I've lived in New England, Florida, and California and go to most major tournament in the US. I don't base my opinion on one or two local pool halls.

One would be hard pressed to find someone that has significantly more observation on LD shafts as I over the years, scientifically and empirically.

What I said then is no different than today: LD shaft helps a lot of players, but those that are already used to hitting both sides of the ball with whatever method they have, the advantage of LD isn't so significant, and that there could easily be disadvantages. All of those disadvantages can be seen on Dr. Dave's LD advantages/disadvantages links.

After my year and half of using a 314 (and yes, I was winning tournaments all over New England, also documented, but that really doesn't matter), I switched back to a normal shaft (my new-at-the-time Andy Gilbert), and the world was right. I didn't have any reduction of spin, no reduction of shotmaking with english when returning to a normal shaft. What I did gain by going back to a normal shaft was better, more understandable speed control when using english, and much more accuracy and repeatability when shooting slow, spin shots (higher effective swerve, lower effective squirt).

Nothing has changed over the years, as I've tested and owned most LD shafts available. And those that know me know I'm going to try them out, even if it won't be a fit. I think I know why "New to LD" players like them, but I also know why players like me don't find LD shafts to be an advantage.

That's my story retold, and nothing is different. This topic is brought up every two months. Nothing is different.

For those that love LD shafts, great. I'm happy. But, please refrain from telling me that I need to investigate more, have poor observation skills, shoot with less english :) , and need to get my head out of the sand.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Poolplaya9 said:
So put them in the company of Alex and SVB as yet more proof that at the highest levels shaft type doesn't matter because they have used both and played at the same high level with both. There are still plenty of great examples of players who only used standard deflection shafts and played at the highest levels possible but instead of wanting to discuss the substance of the argument you are more interested in debating which list individuals belong on even though both lists are strong and compelling evidence that shaft type makes no difference whatsoever at their level.


The fact that low deflection shafts were not available doesn't change the fact that Mosconi played pool at the highest levels possible with a standard deflection shaft. My point was that higher levels of pool have not been played with low deflection shafts and he was one of many good examples that can illustrate that point.


Do you see low deflection shafts dominating the top of the charts? I don't. Do you see any of those names playing better than Efren or SVB when they were at the top of their games using standard shafts? I don't. All you have managed to say is that the low deflection shaft users can play right there with the standard shaft users. You are preaching to the choir. I agree. Been saying the same thing all along. At their level the shaft type doesn't matter.

Answer this for me. Using your opinion, I want you to list who you believe are the best straight pool, bank pool, eight ball, nine ball, ten ball, and one pocket players of all time. Then list what type of shaft they were using at the height of their game and post it all in this thread. Then go ahead and try to argue again that higher levels of pool can be or have been played with low deflection shafts while looking at your list that will almost assuredly say otherwise.


The evidence doesn't say that it is significantly less important at their level. The evidence says that it makes zero difference at their level. None. Zilch.


No, you didn't. You said that I was arguing that people should use standard deflection shafts. I never said that, never insinuated that, and never said anything even remotely similar to that. For whatever reason you very obviously haven't understood my posts at all to have gotten that from them.


Well in regards to whether it is better for the highest level players it most certainly is pretty definitively answered by looking at the highest level players. And in the absence of any other compelling evidence regarding lesser players it is an indication (albeit a far from conclusive one) of what is likely the case with lesser players. And yes, there is definitely a lack of legitimate evidence that low deflection shafts are better for lesser players. If you have some then by all mean present it but your theory about it being better for lesser players and why doesn't pass for legitimate evidence.


Two reasons. First, it is the only group for which we have clear and compelling evidence, and make no mistake about it, the evidence is very clear and compelling. Second, because it is an indication of what is likely the case for lesser players as well. In the case of weaker players it is pretty weak evidence, but it is the only legitimate evidence we have (other than you swearing that low deflection just has to be better for them).
Click to expand...

Poolplaya, I'm sorry I'm going to have to bow out of this with you. I can see we are in two very different places with regard to logic and reason. And reading. I never said the things you are saying I did. With all due respect, I just don't think this conversation is likely to go anywhere with you. Sorry bud.

KMRUNOUT
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Agreed. Where I disagree is with how much difference there will actually be. I don't think they will pocket near as many extra balls that they would have missed with the standard deflection shaft as you do. You are also only focused on that one benefit from the low deflection shaft and not factoring in the many benefits of a standard deflection shaft. You have to factor in the benefits of both and then net them out to see which comes out ahead. Let me know when you do that. This will be next to impossible to do by the way.


You have to admit this is pretty funny coming from the guy making the grandiose claims about how big of a difference low deflection shafts make and huge number of more shots people will make with them that they otherwise would have missed all without providing any citation yourself.

The 98% is just a rough number to give an idea of the ball park I was talking about when I said you will still miss most of the shots with a low deflection shaft that you would have missed with a standard shaft. I already gave part of the evidence though. You can calculate it yourself for any particular shot. Calculate how wide the contact patch is on the cue ball to make that particular shot. Calculate the average amount that crappy player will hit away from vertical center ball axis of the cue ball. Now for that same shot, and the average amount the crappy player misses center ball by, calculate the amount of squirt the standard deflection and low deflection shafts will have imparted on the cue ball by the time it reaches the object ball. Now you can compare their amount of squirt from each to half the size of the contact patch on the object ball and get a decent idea if that particular shot would have gone with either shaft. To keep it simple I am ignoring speed and swerve etc but feel free to factor it all in if you wish.

Now do that same calculation for dozens of different shots that would be representative of the broad spectrum of shots that tend to come up in actual games. Keep in mind that a crappier player who can't even hit center ball very well (the type of player you are arguing gets the most benefit from low deflection) certainly won't be able to play position very well if at all and so their shots will tend to be much, much longer than yours would tend to be. If you are not capable of doing all the precise calculations or don't want to bother you may be able to estimate it well enough to get a pretty good ball park idea.

What I think you will find after you analyze a number of shots that the crappy player is most likely to encounter during a game is that most of the shots that they would have missed with a standard deflection shaft they would have also missed with a low deflection shaft.

So whats your citation for your claims about large numbers of shots that would go with a low deflection that wouldn't with standard deflection?



You would have to set up the experiment to cover the full spectrum of shots that would be encountered in real games and in the proper ratios. The way you have that experiment only includes shots where the low deflection shaft has an advantage. I already agree with you that the low deflection shaft will be slightly better in limited areas. I could set up an experiment that only had full cue jump shots and the standard deflection shaft will be the clear winner and I can then erroneously declare it superior based on that too. Setting it up with only the shots that favor one or the other tells you nothing. You have to include the full spectrum of shots in the ratio that they will be encountered in real games by a crappy player. This would be next to impossible to do by the way, but it is what you will have to be able to do to get a definitive answer that way.
Click to expand...

Try re-reading my posts. I've never said the things you think I said. I never said there was a *huge* number of shots people would make with LD vs standard. I said there are some. More than zero. If it turns out it is the 9 ball that wins me the tournament, and that was only one shot out of 10,000, then I'm still happy for the difference.

After reading your replies to me, I think its best to let this little sub-conversation die.

KMRUNOUT
 
9Ballr said:
The question was "How much does low deflection really matter?"

The answer is: those shafts don't matter.
What matters is that you get used to one shaft and play like there's no tomorrow.
You can do the same stuff on any shaft. Just get used to what feels good to you.
To me what feels good is a solid maple shaft.
But then again I like a lot of feedback from my sticks.

Also, of note, I currently have the same tip on a solid maple shaft and an OB Classic +
shaft and the feel is totally different PLUS for whatever reason the LD just
feels terribly mushy as if I had installed medium-hard tip on the solid and soft on the LD.
Both shafts have a Triangle tips that were installed on the same day and have had roughly
the same amount of play.
No matter what I do I can not get the LD (in this case the OB) to feel as crisp.
And the tip always feels mushy and like it's much softer.

Don't know why.

This isn't the first test where I've done this and the LD always feels like the tips are much
softer and the shaft shoots somehow very mushy in comparison.
Click to expand...

Not quite right. LD shafts definitely do something different than standard shafts. I think only the very very dim would claim otherwise. How much does it matter is not a very specific question. It must matter some because people need to discuss it at length over and over for years. How much does it matter to improving slightly? How much does it matter to playing world class pool? How much does it matter to generating conversation? How much does it matter to generating revenue in this dying industry?

Getting used to the shaft you have matters a LOT. Pick a cue, shoot with it, learn it, master it. That is HUGE. However, the hugeness of that concept does not make other things irrelevant or insignificant. LD matters. It can make significant changes to a person's game. It doesn't matter nearly as much as learning the shaft you have, but it does matter. The majority of pool players are not very skilled. For this huge group, most of whom simply do not plan on investing the hours necessary to learn a lot of the game, LD can provide some shortcuts to learning shots that would otherwise require years of practice. This thread is choc full o' logical errors. I'd be interested to know what speed the people in this thread play. I'd also be interested what age group the posters fall into.

In any case, if people looking for info take nothing from this thread, hopefully they will take away the idea that they should get any cue and bang balls for a year. Learn the basics, and spend a little time trying out other peoples' cues. See what you like. Then buy a nice version of that and learn it. I had my first cue for about 2 years. Then I had my next cue for at least 10. The cue I play with now is likely to be my "last" cue, and I've had it since 2009. I've changed shafts here and there, but always use LD. The reason I change is that I love the *hit* of a nice standard shaft, but like the performance of LD shafts. So I like seeing the evolution of shaft makers trying to merge those two qualities. If you are a new player, you're nuts if you don't even *try* LD.

Point is, does LD matter? Yes. Provably, demonstrably, and without question yes. Is it better? Maybe. In some cases. Is it the most important thing? No.

Thread over?

KMRUNOUT
 
conditions matter

MuchoBurrito said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have an answer that should make some sense, lower deflection is more important under new cloth and polished ball environment. In an open air pool room on a humid day your one piece shaft will not deflect much (even with a forward balanced cue.) The tip will stay on the ball longer with a light shaft, so even with humidity being an issue - you can produce more back spin on the cue ball using a hollowed out shaft (light weight). Bottom line humidity dampens deflection just as dry air increases it. Hope that helps you.
 
JoeyA said:
Quick question: When you switch between LD and traditional shafts, do you know if you consciously or subconsciously add or reduce cue elevation to obtain your desired results? OR, do you keep your cue elevation the same using either shafts.

Oh yeah, didn't you write billiard articles for magazines as well?

BTW, Royce was one of my favorite people in the pool industry and I told him so a long time before he passed. I always like your posts and enjoy your company. You're what's good for pool. Okay, there.... Cornerman...check.....

JoeyA
Click to expand...
Thanks again for the plug, JoeyA!

To your question, I don't consciously change my elevation. If I switch shafts, I check what the squirt is on some standard shots (by the Aim & Pivot Test Method) and go from there.


Freddie <~~~ it's all on the swerve
 
erhino41 said:
How so? The cue ball does not know that the spin your using is inside or outside. Maybe your referring to cut induced throw? If so I still think your assessment is inaccurate, your giving to much value to cit. The question was not about maple shafts it was about deflection properties alone. Most shafts are made of maple. Ld will make adjustments different with inside or outside, it just won't make them any easier.
Click to expand...
I never said the cueball knows anything, but the shaft sure does. Inside english is
the most feared spin shot in pool and very hard to gauge for most players including
pros. Tony Robles avoided that shot like the plague until he started using a Predator
shaft.
The ball stayed in line and took alot of guessing out of the picture. He made those
shots much more and didn't avoid them.
Most LD users I've ever talked to feel the same regarding LD shafts.
And yes, less guessing does make it much easier to pot the ball on a consistent
level.
 
It also works against you. With a normal shaft shooting a close to 90-degree cut, you can play a moderate-to-slow pace with inside and the initial squirt will take the cueball outside and then swerve will curve it back in, effectively widening the angle and making it easier to cut the object ball in. With an LD shaft, to play that same shot, you have to aim to miss form the start and hope the CB swerves in enough.

LD is bad for masse around an obstacle that's too close. Without that initial squirt, you have to shoot further out of your way and curve harder to come back in around the obstacle.

LD has a harder time with draw at very long distances.

LD is typically more susceptible stroke errors where you pull across your body.

You're right that LD does let you play close-in spin shots with much greater consistency, and or hard follow+spin shots where your object ball is not exactly hanging. Shots I play with LD that I would not have attempted with a non-LD shaft are 1) very very tight shots close to the pocket where I have to use spin to throw the ball in 2) force follow where the object ball is more than one foot from the pocket and I'm going to reverse off the rail to go the opposite direction of the natural rebound.

But like many people have said, you had better have your stroke well in hand if you want to play long shots with an LD shaft, if you stroke even a hair out of line, the cue ball isn't going to squirt back on line, it's going to head wherever your tip finished on your stroke.. So yeah you have less aim adjustment to do to compensate for deflection but you have less room for stroke errors as well.
 
Just rewatched TAR 4 with Shane and Earl.

Earl said that he does NOT play with a LD shaft.

So hmm, arguably the greatest shot maker in history does not need/use LD tech. That's kind of interesting.

I had to mention this. Not sure what that means though...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top