IF you had a zero deflection cue, how would you play?

C

CaptainPots

Registered
Hi. I have a question.

Manufacturers are always pushing for cues with the lowest deflection. Let us suppose that we have now reached the point where there exists a cue with zero deflection.

How do you apply sidespin to shots to make the cue ball go straight down the aiming line? Of course the cue tip will be pointing towards, say... 3 o' clock on the cue ball, but where would the cue butt be? Would it be a parallel shift, pivoted shift or what?

The reason I ask is because I find it hard to justify to myself that the lower the deflection the better. So what if a cue deflects balls less (or more) if a player can "learn" and adopt a consistent way (maybe pivoting or whatever) to apply sidespin to make the cue ball go straight down the aiming line? If I pick up a new, different cue, regardless of whether it has higher or lower deflection that my current cue, I'm still going to have to adapt to that new cue because the way I apply sidespin has been adapted to my current cue. Unless adapting to an unfamiliar LD cue is more intuitive than adapting to an unfamiliar non-LD cue, I don't see why LD cues offer any advantage.

Please enlighten.

Cheers.

Keith.
 
Jacoby LD shafts

CaptainPots said:
Hi. I have a question.

Manufacturers are always pushing for cues with the lowest deflection. Let us suppose that we have now reached the point where there exists a cue with zero deflection.

How do you apply sidespin to shots to make the cue ball go straight down the aiming line? Of course the cue tip will be pointing towards, say... 3 o' clock on the cue ball, but where would the cue butt be? Would it be a parallel shift, pivoted shift or what?

The reason I ask is because I find it hard to justify to myself that the lower the deflection the better. So what if a cue deflects balls less (or more) if a player can "learn" and adopt a consistent way (maybe pivoting or whatever) to apply sidespin to make the cue ball go straight down the aiming line? If I pick up a new, different cue, regardless of whether it has higher or lower deflection that my current cue, I'm still going to have to adapt to that new cue because the way I apply sidespin has been adapted to my current cue. Unless adapting to an unfamiliar LD cue is more intuitive than adapting to an unfamiliar non-LD cue, I don't see why LD cues offer any advantage.

Please enlighten.

Cheers.

Keith.
Click to expand...

I wrote ebooks on aiming and squirt allowances. I purposely stayed away from switching to LD during the process, even though I tested every shaft I came across. During the process I found the Jacoby Hybrid was my cup of tea but I was very used to a long pro taper 12.80 standard ferrule. Then someone offered me a Hybrid shaft and I bought it for a deal and decided to play the tip off and make up my mind. I played with it for 3 months and found another deal and bought it too. I still have and keep other types of shafts but I found an LD that I like and I know that the shafts will be similar if I need another one. There were shafts I couldn't play with without major adjustments but I could learn to adjust fairly easy. I'm not sure you need to get to zero squirt but a bit closer is a lot of help and if you are having trouble in your game with inconsistency because of it. You have to ask yourself if you're going to be playing the rest of your life and do you want to make it easier. Well it is.
I play One Pocket a lot. I've noticed no loss of integrity for masse or finesse shots using the shafts I play with. If anything I have less vibration on shots where I'm jacked up shooting down or under some circumstance that is unusual. It was a great change to make. I'm real happy. There were other brands I liked as well but the Jacoby found me and I liked it so there you go.
 
What makes people say that LD shafts makes playing easier? I know that they mean it's "easier to use sidespin in their gameplay" but what exactly does it mean to be easier?
 
CaptainPots said:
What makes people say that LD shafts makes playing easier? I know that they mean it's "easier to use sidespin in their gameplay" but what exactly does it mean to be easier?
Click to expand...

you can aim closer to where you aim with vertical axis shots withall spins
therefore you dont need to lean as many compensations for different amounts of spin
jmho
 
CaptainPots said:
If I have a zero deflection cue would I be applying sidespin in a parallel shift manner?
Click to expand...

In principle yes but that’s just one part of the equation, among other things, and you still need to think about the effect of swerve where applicable
 
Last edited:
pinkspider said:
In principle yes but that’s just one part of the equation and you still need to think about the effect of swerve where applicable
Click to expand...
Yup I completely agree with you, but I was concerned about the (purely) squirt/deflection part of the equation.

Hmm so If I were to transition from our modern cues to a zero deflection cue I would have to change my technique to use parallel shift which means to say that as cues are increasingly lower in deflection, will our technique become more towards parallel shift?
 
CaptainPots said:
Hmm so If I were to transition from our modern cues to a zero deflection cue I would have to change my technique to use parallel shift which means to say that as cues are increasingly lower in deflection, will our technique become more towards parallel shift?
Click to expand...

You probably don't have to, I know a lot of people who use low deflection shafts and they don't – consciously at least.

I use very low deflection cues – Revo / OB Classic Pro / etc, and I use a combination of parallel and pivot, depending on the effect of the cue ball I want.

I was playing with standard shafts for almost 10 years. Then switched to low deflection shafts because I felt I couldn't spend as much time practising and playing and decided to go for something simpler – when all else fails, just go for accuracy, or so I thought back then.

It's not. I found it harder than using a conventional shaft, because sometimes the behaviour of the shaft is not what you'd expect (my case is a bit of an outlier, so, pinch of salt) So no choice there – I switched to a textbook stroke and stance, just charted out everything and memorised – a painful two year transition, but it got easier with time.

But the one luxury I have when using a low deflection shaft is this: when under pressure (though with the requisite number of hours of practice in the bag) I am very confident I can deal with a tricky pot even when my stroke isn't silky smooth.

The Revo is very good in this regard. to me at least, it seems to spend very little time on the tip of your cue (more so than any other low-D shaft. I can't speak for the BeCue though, I have not tried that one yet), and you have a lot of power as well. I often opt to pot and run around the table instead of trying to 'hold' the cue ball. It's less dependent on touch. That being said, it becomes harder to execute certain finesse shots but that's how our world works I guess. It's about which trade-off suits u best.
 
The fact that adapting to a LD shaft can be more of a pain than adapting to a traditional shaft makes me think that perhaps... when purchasing a new cue, it doesn't matter what the cue makes the cueball do when applying sidespin, so long as it doesn't look absolutely unpredictable and ridiculous, because it's only a matter of time before you adapt to it.

Maybe the deflection aspect can be disregarded so everything else about the shaft, e.g. stiffness, power, vibration, can be the important factors instead?

pinkspider said:
You probably don't have to, I know a lot of people who use low deflection shafts and they don't – consciously at least.

I use very low deflection cues – Revo / OB Classic Pro / etc, and I use a combination of parallel and pivot, depending on the effect of the cue ball I want.

I was playing with standard shafts for almost 10 years. Then switched to low deflection shafts because I felt I couldn't spend as much time practising and playing and decided to go for something simpler – when all else fails, just go for accuracy, or so I thought back then.

It's not. I found it harder than using a conventional shaft, because sometimes the behaviour of the shaft is not what you'd expect (my case is a bit of an outlier, so, pinch of salt) So no choice there – I switched to a textbook stroke and stance, just charted out everything and memorised – a painful two year transition, but it got easier with time.

But the one luxury I have when using a low deflection shaft is this: when under pressure (though with the requisite number of hours of practice in the bag) I am very confident I can deal with a tricky pot even when my stroke isn't silky smooth.

The Revo is very good in this regard. to me at least, it seems to spend very little time on the tip of your cue (more so than any other low-D shaft. I can't speak for the BeCue though, I have not tried that one yet), and you have a lot of power as well. I often opt to pot and run around the table instead of trying to 'hold' the cue ball. It's less dependent on touch. That being said, it becomes harder to execute certain finesse shots but that's how our world works I guess. It's about which trade-off suits u best.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainPots said:
The fact that adapting to a LD shaft can be more of a pain than adapting to a traditional shaft makes me think that perhaps... when purchasing a new cue, it doesn't matter what the cue makes the cueball do when applying sidespin, so long as it doesn't look absolutely unpredictable and ridiculous, because it's only a matter of time before you adapt to it.

Maybe the deflection aspect can be disregarded so everything else about the shaft, e.g. stiffness, power, vibration, can be the important factors instead?
Click to expand...

If you keep your play relatively simple, LD shafts can be easier. It sounds silly but one big factor for me in switching was so that i didnt have to aim at empty space in trying to hit a hard stun run shot with a fair amount of english.

Yeah it's a matter of time and commitment.

Honestly, I've never regarded vibration as an issue, or rather I'm oblivious to it. I do find LD shafts generally (emphasis: on average) have less power (except Revo, generally) than their conventional counterparts. But again, it's not something that cannot be overcome.

It depends on what you are hoping to improve with the use of LD...

P.S. I keep bringing up Revo in my recent posts, but it's just as an example, not so much as an endorsement. I wouldn't recommend it for most people because it gives a very warped view of how shafts behave in general. But who knows. someday it may become the norm.
 
CaptainPots said:
God yeah... imagine 0 deflection and you aren't making balls because of spin-induced throw.

People would be coming up with throw-compensation systems.
Click to expand...

It's a relatively small problem. i feel it makes the game more enjoyable and interesting; fascinating, really. if they did this at school i would have been far more attentive during physics classes
 
If they had shown this in my Physics class, I wouldn't have DROPPED THE SUBJECT just to get more free-time to play some Football :grin:

pinkspider said:
It's a relatively small problem. i feel it makes the game more enjoyable and interesting; fascinating, really. if they did this at school i would have been far more attentive during physics classes
Click to expand...
 
The way I have been taught by my coach to apply sidespin is such that when I'm down on my shot, I still see the same ball to ball overlap — in that sense, no matter what sidespin I use, I am still sighting down the same line as if I am aiming centre ball — and the cue would be pivoted under my eye and I will no longer be sighting down the shaft.

pinkspider said:
If you keep your play relatively simple, LD shafts can be easier. It sounds silly but one big factor for me in switching was so that i didnt have to aim at empty space in trying to hit a hard stun run shot with a fair amount of english.
Click to expand...

I use a Mezz WD700 shaft and a few months ago I tried a 314-3 and was taken aback by the combination of "numbness" and "power" it had. It was odd because there was less feedback than my Mezz but more effortless power when I gave it a slow smooth stroke. It was like I was using nothing in my hand but the ball had life.

pinkspider said:
Honestly, I've never regarded vibration as an issue, or rather I'm oblivious to it. I do find LD shafts generally (emphasis: on average) have less power (except Revo, generally) than their conventional counterparts. But again, it's not something that cannot be overcome.
Click to expand...
 
CaptainPots said:
The fact that adapting to a LD shaft can be more of a pain than adapting to a traditional shaft makes me think that perhaps... when purchasing a new cue, it doesn't matter what the cue makes the cueball do when applying sidespin, so long as it doesn't look absolutely unpredictable and ridiculous, because it's only a matter of time before you adapt to it.

Maybe the deflection aspect can be disregarded so everything else about the shaft, e.g. stiffness, power, vibration, can be the important factors instead?
Click to expand...

Have at it. Your money, your criteria, your decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top