Last edited:
Is a Cue with Less Squirt or Cue Ball Deflection Better?
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Last edited:
I would agree with this. An example would be a virtually straight in shot that you might need to follow to get the cue ball off a couple of cushions to a different location on the table.
A shaft with some deflection will allow you to load up the cue ball with right or left spin to create a slight angle on the shot, so you can play it with high inside or high outside, and not worry about the cue ball following the object ball in to the pocket.
Are you suggesting you can just aim the shot straight and rely on the CB deflection to create the desired amount of pocket cheat? That works, assuming the CB deflection is the right amount for the shot distance and speed.
I prefer to aim to achieve the amount of pocket cheat I want and correct my aim for CB deflection (based on shot distance and speed), regardless of which cue I might be using. SAWS makes this easy.
There are certainly different ways of thinking about stuff, but I think there are advantages to actually aiming where you want the CB to go.
Of course with high and low deflection shafts you have to adjust your aim for distance, speed, etc. - so neither is more "automatic", though both can become familiar enough to seem so.
pj
chgo
Just looking at Dr Dave’s SAWS again, or generally speaking using pivoting for spin, one thing I see is that bridge length is a constant, and the pivoting varies depending on shot speed and distance. But bridge length is only constant with your hand on the table under ideal conditions. In actual play a sizable percentage, maybe even approaching half of all shots, require bridge length adjustments: bridging over or in front of/behind a ball, and rail bridges come up all the time. Watch pro players and I think they have preferred bridge lengths, but I also think they vary it all the time.
That doesn’t mean you can’t adjust, but it’s significantly more complex to throw bridge length in as a variable in SAWS rather than a constant.
That doesn’t mean you can’t adjust, but it’s significantly more complex to throw bridge length in as a variable in SAWS rather than a constant.
Atorontopoolplayer
Active member
This and the shot JV are talking about are the ones I'd miss the squirt the most. These straight in one's I don't think of as cheating the pocket differently but the swerve alters the pocketing angle to come into object ball from slightly different direction enabling you to hold the cue ball straighter or move it slightly more.
Good point. SAWS is effective only with a consistent bridge length (unless you also calibrate for “short” and “long” bridge lengths). But when you are reaching over balls or elevating for any reason, sidespin is a dicey proposition. When sidespin is required in these situations, one must use “feel” based on previous practice. But I think the majority of sidespin shots are with a near level cue at a player’s normal bridge length. Whenever I need to use sidespin with a longer or shorter bridge length, I just fudge my BHE/FHE numbers proportionally (increasing BHE for a longer bridge and decreasing it for a longer bridge).
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I can see your point, I think I swerved better before I got my CF shaft. Admittedly, my technique is the biggest issue, by far. I had a 314-3 that swerves felt really natural, and had some luck with a solid maple shaft, too. It's just the different characteristics of the shafts causing different factors to do more or less. I just need to take the time to learn.
Since it's swerve again, LD requires more for a given shot than HD. Seems to me (off the top of this post) you can't just shoot further past an obstacle and still expect the same results - or even successful results, as would be the norm with standard HD cues.
dendweller
Well-known member
Cutting a ball down the rail with high inside to follow out 3 rails is easier with deflection for me. There's a spot on the cb where you can aim as if you're playing center cue ball because the squirt and swerve cancel each other out. On the other hand, I have no problem pinching a ball frozen to a rail with low outside with an ld shaft. Miss that mostly with a standard shaft.
dendweller
Well-known member
I don't think the amount of swerve changes between LD and HD, just your aim point.
I use SAWS with a Z3 shaft and I perform the pivot in the air and imagine a cue ball in front of my cue when pivoting. I then look at the angle I am at relative to that imaginary cue ball and line up on the shot at that angle relative to the aim at the object ball with throw taken into account. This allows me to use any bridge length and not have to play with the numbers. It also allows me to line up with arm alignment as if I'm shooting a center ball shot on every shot which really helps with the cueing consistencies.
If I am jacking up the cue I start adding to the FHE. For most elevations I will add 20 to FHE if the shot is a topspin shot. If its a backspin shot I will normally add less depending upon how hard I'm hitting it. This works really well and I've had lower level professional players compliment how well I hit these slightly jacked up/on the rail spin shots. It would say that greater than 95% of all elevated english shots can be properly adjusted with a 20 or 10 change in FHE.
The thing I find with SAWS when fudging the FHE value for elevation is you really are a slave to the speed of the shot. This means you have to be really concious as to what speed you hit it at or you wont make the shot. So basically you dont have the same freedom of speeds you would without it. This goes for all shots not just elevated spin but elevated with spin even more.
Of course to get around the "slave to the speed of the shot" issue you can fudge with the numbers but I find that I like to leave the numbers as-is as much as possible. So if i can use a 'default' number with a 'default' speed and get decent position without having to mess around with the numbers I will use the 'default' shot. However, if experience tells me there is no way with the 'default' shot speed I will get decent postition I will start messing around with the numbers and change the shot speed accordingly.
The same goes with fudging the numbers for distances. I think I subconciously change the speeds a tiny bit for distances. Most of the time this works well in rotation pool. However, there are some instances when you have to use a particular speed and shoot in between distances. In this case the numbers need to be modified.
Change tables or the humidity changes? This is not a problem. Most tables seem to play 'on-system', but sometimes they dont, however, and to fix this you just notice that the cue ball is swerving too much or too little then adjust FHE by 10. So you can adjust to a changing conditions after just one miss and it seems to work well for all shots there-on-out. The only problem with this is you now have to adjust numbers in your head before every shot.
SAWs even works on a 10 foot table except I have found you need to add another category called "very long" which is just a natural progression off the already existing values. I can imagine it might not work as well on a tight 10 footer, as the only one I have tried it on was of normal difficulty. On a tight 10 footer I can imagine you need to start playing with the numbers a little more to make it work as well as a 9 footer..
Using the above techniques SAWs works really well for me, even on a tight 9 foot diamond. The only problem is you have to be good at playing with numbers in your head, which depending upon the person might be a serious problem under pressure until sufficient experience is built up, or for others they might not be able to do it at all.
So basically I see SAWs as a good system for STEM majors, most other people are probably going to have trouble dealing with the complexities of the system.
Last edited:
Dr Dave:
This talk about SAWS brings up a question I've had about it for a while:
As mentioned above I like to air pivot instead of pivoting when down. I also use Z3 shafts which have a pivot point of about 16 inches. When pivoting I use your numbers you laid out in the SAWS video and literature and adjust the pivot location accordingly.
Rarely, but still sometimes, I will get inattentive with my pivoting and pivot from the wrong distance and end up missing a shot because of it. Normally, I semi-conciously see the bad pivot placement while I am pivoting but ignore it because I am so focused on the task at hand.
So now for the question: If I switched to a Revo with a 20 inch pivot point would I get a significantly larger margin for error with where I must place my front hand when pivoting on a 'normal' difficulty shot? Also, in the alterative, would performing the calibration tests with the Z3 and a longer bridge have a similar effect as a shaft switch with error in pivot placement?
Since I have your numbers so ingrained at this point I am not interested actually implementing the alternative method but am still interested in if it would have any merit. However, if changing shafts might add a noticeable margin for error then I might be open to switching.
This talk about SAWS brings up a question I've had about it for a while:
As mentioned above I like to air pivot instead of pivoting when down. I also use Z3 shafts which have a pivot point of about 16 inches. When pivoting I use your numbers you laid out in the SAWS video and literature and adjust the pivot location accordingly.
Rarely, but still sometimes, I will get inattentive with my pivoting and pivot from the wrong distance and end up missing a shot because of it. Normally, I semi-conciously see the bad pivot placement while I am pivoting but ignore it because I am so focused on the task at hand.
So now for the question: If I switched to a Revo with a 20 inch pivot point would I get a significantly larger margin for error with where I must place my front hand when pivoting on a 'normal' difficulty shot? Also, in the alterative, would performing the calibration tests with the Z3 and a longer bridge have a similar effect as a shaft switch with error in pivot placement?
Since I have your numbers so ingrained at this point I am not interested actually implementing the alternative method but am still interested in if it would have any merit. However, if changing shafts might add a noticeable margin for error then I might be open to switching.
Last edited:
Then my experience that HD will exceed LD on [over square frozen to the rail shots] is correct?
dendweller
Well-known member
Not sure, just mean that I don't think the amount of swerve necessary to come back to where you want changes because you deflected that way or aimed that way. Still starts in the same direction so has to come back the same amount. But I may be missing something about your point.
OK. Ball is frozen to a short rail say middle diamond, and you need to back cut it from the other end of the table. This was the first issue I envisioned when first I heard of LD shafts. So when a local cue maker cajoled me into trying his new creation (the stick was very pretty) that's the first shot I set up. Needless to say the shot wouldn't go. As a base reference that shot is all but dead with a wall cue.
dendweller
Well-known member
And why do you think that is?