i dont understand the hype about ld shafts

[Matt]

Softshot, while I agree with you that endmass is the main factor, the *reason* I agree with you is because someone told me so. I didn't do any research about the physics of the situation. I *believe* the research of others like Bob Jewett and Dr, Dave. It would be my guess that you are in the same boat. One thing I'm certain that Bob, Dr. Dave, you, and I don't know is the things we *don't know*. Before we heard cue ball deflection was caused by endmass, I think we all thought it was something else. How stiff the shaft is, the taper, etc. But then we *heard* from someone that there was another explanation, and we believed it because it sounded reasonable.

The *reality* is, neither you nor I are really qualified to dismiss Jaden's claim. You don't *know* if he is right or wrong. You are happy to base a rude and argumentative stance on hearsay. But you really don't know. I don't know either. My first reaction is to doubt his claim. Doubting it is fine. Its part of the scientific process. If Jaden can prove his claim, then great! He obviously believes he can. One thing is for sure though: when someone makes claims about something they do not yet know, and rudely and vehemently sticks to those claims, they are often not received well by others, and look foolish to the more science minded within earshot. But whatever works for you!

KMRUNOUT

The nice thing about the resources available regarding squirt is that they combine theoretical physics and experimental physics. The agreement between the two approaches strengthens them both. Even if you're not into the mathematical proofs, some of the experimentation is easily duplicated on your own. For example, determining the pivot point on a particular cue is much easier to do by experimentation than mathematical analysis.

<tangent>
There are always going to be players that don't know and don't care about why the balls react the way they do, and some of them will be great players just by feel. I personally enjoy approaching the game from a theoretical perspective, and feel like my understanding of the game can give me a slight edge from time to time, but the game is still mostly about execution. Likewise, playing with an LD shaft can be a slight edge, but it won't turn a bad player into a good one.
</tangent>

I actually think that softshot does understand the mechanics of squirt and swerve better than most, but doesn't agree that the reduction of squirt is a significant advantage. It could be that he relies heavily on having the pivot point at his normal bridge length or that he is so used the squirt offsetting swerve that the benefits of less squirt on faster and shorter shots are outweighed by the "consequences" on long and slow shots. The issue I have with his arguments against lower deflection is that they are based on either learned behavior or bad mechanics, whereas the benefits of less squirt are based on reducing the range of adjustments necessary for most shots, especially those that are common in rotation games, where you have to move the CB all over the place.

 

[Rain-Man]

Royce...I already had a lot of respect for you, but +1 for this post!!! Very well stated. You have very clearly and rationally stated your postion. I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, I am not so sure that "rationality" is going to reach Softshot. I am quite eager to hear how he could possibly disagree with what you have said here! The real question is: "why is my OB Classic so awesome after getting it back with the replaced ferrule (for free everyone fyi.)?" Haha...anyway very nice post!

KMRUNOUT

I agree, +1 Royce for your posts.. It would be VERY hard for me to stay as professional as you always seem to do, especially with argumentative people like softshot who, like you pointed out, can post(hide) in anonymity...

There are always some people who just prefer a solid maple shaft, and that is absolutely fine. But to argue that they are all 'hype' and do not do anything different than a solid maple shaft is like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat, and we never actually made it to the moon..:bash::banghead:

As an aside, I also have to give a +1 to O.B.. I had a shaft that I purchased a number of years ago that delaminated. I emailed O.B. about it, not even thinking I had a leg to stand on with it, and they replaced it without a question.. I didnt think they would, and was very impressed that they did. I make sure I try to tell as many people about that as I can, because it is an example of excellent customer service, even when they most likely could have easily chose not to (I wouldnt have been surprised if they did, but they didnt...).. :thumbup:

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think we both have a similar understanding of what's going on with squirt and deflection, but you stated that you can't get the same "fullness" of hit with an LD shaft of a shot where you "squerve" into the object ball as you would with a regular shaft, and that's not the case. An LD shaft will cause just as much swerve as the regular shaft, just not as much squirt to offset it, so you can cause the CB to take the same path with either shaft by adjusting your aim.

Matt,

I was referring to the same shot line with the same tip offset & speed of hit or at least I meant to.

Yes if one aims farther out & the swerve will get the ball to cross the line, then the angle could be the same, but I would think that the speed & spin would be different.

As I said difference begets difference & it can be very difficult at times (if not impossible) to make the differences result in the exact same outcome.

Best,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

If you read Dave's technical proof (here) and Ron Shepard's paper (here), you'll see that the use the term "effective end mass"; which may include flexibility to some small degree, but is primarily driven by the actual mass of the last 6-10 inches of the cue, especially within the realistic range for a cue.

While you're going through Shepard's paper, take note of the section near the end addressing the desirability of squirt. He makes an interesting point that players with a bad stroke but good aim might benefit from a cue that has a pivot point near their normal bridge length, at least in terms of making shots. The pivot point on LD cues is too far back for it to be at a normal bridge length. This makes me wonder if some people that struggle going from a regular cue to an LD cues have been using unintentional backhand english as a crutch for a poor stroke.

Matt,

I would certainly tend to agree that some have stroke flaws for which they may have been compensating & the shaft change can bring that out into the open.

You also bring up the point of bridge length & the pivot method with the back hand.

I was thinking along the the lines of a 'parallel' shift during the course of this thread with the same bridge length.

Another parameter with which we were perhaps thinking along different lines.

Best,
Rick

 

[Lonestar_jim]

Tap tap

Heard of Darren Appleton? World 9 ball? US Open? Challenge of Champions? Mosconi cup?
All won using a "flimsy POS" predator. Sorry your predator broke dude but that doesn't mean
it's impossible to shoot well with one. You just got unlucky, or maybe you bang balls too hard
and smack it on the table too much.

Emphasis added, but damn there is plenty of truth spoken in jest. :rotflmao1:

 

[dr_dave]

If you read Dave's technical proof (here) and Ron Shepard's paper (here), you'll see that the use the term "effective end mass"; which may include flexibility to some small degree, but is primarily driven by the actual mass of the last 6-10 inches of the cue, especially within the realistic range for a cue.

FYI, a more "accessible" explanation of this (without all of the math and physics) can be found on the squirt - endmass and stiffness resource page.

While you're going through Shepard's paper, take note of the section near the end addressing the desirability of squirt. He makes an interesting point that players with a bad stroke but good aim might benefit from a cue that has a pivot point near their normal bridge length, at least in terms of making shots. The pivot point on LD cues is too far back for it to be at a normal bridge length. This makes me wonder if some people that struggle going from a regular cue to an LD cues have been using unintentional backhand english as a crutch for a poor stroke.

Whether somebody uses a swoop stroke (intentionally or not) or back-hand english (BHE), it can be very important to use a cue with a natural pivot length well matched to the bridge length (especially on short and/or firm shots, where swerve is not a large factor). This can be particularly important with a break cue per the explanation for Diagram 4 at the end of the following article: "Squirt - Part IV: BHE, FHE, and pivot-length calibration" (BD, November, 2007).

Regards,
Dave

 

[greyghost]

preach on professor.. I always thought squirt was part of the line...so now you are saying eliminating squirt doesn't change the line....:scratchhead::scratchhead:


I don't think you know what you are talking about..

and BTW it's not a "low" deflection shaft it's a HIGH deflection shaft.. the shaft deflects MORE not less... it's descriptor is even a lie...

What they are basically trying to say without a paragraph is that you have the ability to aim the cue closer to the actual target than with a typical shaft. I.E. Pro taper etc....

It like shooting a gun, you want to aim at air or do you want to aim at the dam target.

Aim at the air if you feel like, I and many perfer to aim as close to the object contact target as we possibly can.

And all of you know I am no panderer of others products as I make my own, theirs are comparable and I have seen the benefit of royces and others designs as well.

Tho as always what works for you, works for you. But dont sit there and say its a hoke, because thats a complete fallicy. I you want to stay stuck on what you got, hey thats fine. I'm sure it works great for you, the LD wether from a manufacturer like OB, Predator and the like or like my own thats got no lamination or coring etc does work as told whether you like it or not. Beat it up beat it down but it doesn't change facts.

-Greyghost