I tried Prostagenix to maximize squirt and it didn't help.
Do you have a recommendation?
Is a Cue with Less Squirt or Cue Ball Deflection Better?
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Do you have a recommendation?
dendweller
Well-known member
Maybe I'm missing something. Why would you need to create additional spin. Can't you just hit the same stroke that would cause deflection in one shaft, and with the ld shaft just aim where the first shaft would of deflected?
Why it won't go? The most obvious part is it won't deflect far enough. PJ says just shoot wider but no way the ball gets back into the pocket. I stopped contemplating it after that. House cue does it no problem.
It's just that particular specificity. The point is LDs have advantages to a point but apparently can't make certain shots. Incidentally the cue ball has to be out in the open where you can get at the equator. Headstring is fine.
I think this was in the context of skirting an obstructing ball but it's the same thing as back cutting a frozen ball.
Personally I don't think LD's are one bit better, if we concentrate on the word good vs bad by itself.
No matter the shot.
That being said I shoot with a Revo because I don't like the dings, scratches and warping that can happen with wood shafts.
But I have run similar tests as you did, Dave, and I don't find that I personally do any worse at all with a regular non-LD shaft.
Just have to compensate more as speed increases.
Somehow snooker players and non-LD players past or present seem to do just fine.
By the way why do we need all sorts of stuff and endless innovation when snooker players don't?
They use the same cue, obviously no break cues but also no jumpers either, they just kick, they usually don't wear a 30 dollar glove or any glove at all.
They use cheap tips, and typically cheap chalk too.
Somehow manage to shoot lights out without any LD's or the rest of the junk we seem to need.
No matter the shot.
That being said I shoot with a Revo because I don't like the dings, scratches and warping that can happen with wood shafts.
But I have run similar tests as you did, Dave, and I don't find that I personally do any worse at all with a regular non-LD shaft.
Just have to compensate more as speed increases.
Somehow snooker players and non-LD players past or present seem to do just fine.
By the way why do we need all sorts of stuff and endless innovation when snooker players don't?
They use the same cue, obviously no break cues but also no jumpers either, they just kick, they usually don't wear a 30 dollar glove or any glove at all.
They use cheap tips, and typically cheap chalk too.
Somehow manage to shoot lights out without any LD's or the rest of the junk we seem to need.
Last edited:
dendweller
Well-known member
I get what your saying and have thought the same about other shots, that deflection gives the cb a different angle into the cut.
In that case we're saying that spinning a shot with deflection causes it to swerve more than the same spin on a shot done with an ld shaft that doesn't deflect as much.
I would think swerve is caused by the ball spinning on the cloth so why does deflection effect that.
I don't think the deflection has any relationship to swerve; just that an LD can't deflect enough to clear the edge of the object ball.
I think it's because the shaft sends the cueball on a straighter line off the hit so it travels on a straighter line, it also seems to not hop off the contact point when hitting the edge of the cueball as much, so in that case I do feel more comfortable shooting the shot without worrying as much that I will hit it bad.
For the spin with different tips, when me and a friend did a test some years ago, we had normal shafts with one piece tips and a few shafts with different layered tips and with the layered tips we were getting a ball or two of extra action from spinning it off the rail down table. I posted this a few times before, we did a low right spin off a rail a few diamonds from a pocket and noted how close to the diagonally opposite corner it got to. Maybe it was the difference in the shafts since we did not use the exact same shaft, but they were all standard non-LD shafts with different tips.
The direction the CB heads initially depends on aim and squirt. Any CB direction can be created with any shaft with appropriate aim.
Swerve depends only on cue elevation, the tip contact point, shot speed, and cloth conditions. It is the same for all shafts.
Swerve depends only on cue elevation, the tip contact point, shot speed, and cloth conditions. It is the same for all shafts.
Any initial cue direction and any amount of swerve can be created just as well with any cue, with the correct aim for the given cue.
Good examples of that can be found in this video, where the action of the shot is the same with every cue, provided I aimed correctly to compensate for the different squirt from each cue:
... only because you are accustomed to aiming with a a non-LD shaft. You need to aim differently (closer to the desired shot line) with an LD shaft; but with the correct aim to compensate for CB deflection (e.g., from SAWS), the shot result is exactly the same.
dendweller
Well-known member
I get that, just saying it's easier for me with a deflecting cue.
All shafts can hit all shots. Yeah, if you want to masse around a ball you need to account for the lack of squirt with your aim on a LD shaft. But how often does that come up? Not very. So you're taking one very infrequent shot compensation for having to compensate less for the other 98% of shots. First time I played with my Revo I hit a couple killer masse shots doing just that, found them quite easy actually.
I think LD just decreases the amount of overall compensation necessary and the less compensation needed the lesser the chance for error in the judgement of that compensation and the more shots made most likely.
Now, that is assuming someone isn't already very used to something. I have a Revo that I bought recently and spent only a little time with it so far. Long shots with spin were easier for me but short shots with spin were harder. My mind and body are used to deflection and I expect it. Trying to relearn to shoot some short shots without instinctively compensating is hard and throws me off.
For now I'm back to my 12mm or so solid maple Runde shaft with micarta ferrule. I like the feel and I'm used to it's performance. I'm holding onto the Revo, maybe someday I'll decide to go back and put in the time to learn how to use it. But for now, I'm comfortable with my solid maple shaft and how it performs because it's what I've played with the most in the last 7 years or so.
I think LD just decreases the amount of overall compensation necessary and the less compensation needed the lesser the chance for error in the judgement of that compensation and the more shots made most likely.
Now, that is assuming someone isn't already very used to something. I have a Revo that I bought recently and spent only a little time with it so far. Long shots with spin were easier for me but short shots with spin were harder. My mind and body are used to deflection and I expect it. Trying to relearn to shoot some short shots without instinctively compensating is hard and throws me off.
For now I'm back to my 12mm or so solid maple Runde shaft with micarta ferrule. I like the feel and I'm used to it's performance. I'm holding onto the Revo, maybe someday I'll decide to go back and put in the time to learn how to use it. But for now, I'm comfortable with my solid maple shaft and how it performs because it's what I've played with the most in the last 7 years or so.
dendweller
Well-known member
I think you cherry picked what you wanted to respond to. My point was that there are some shots where deflection and swerve cancel each other out so that there is no adjustment necessary from aiming as a normal cut using a deflecting cue. Same shot and contact point with LD you'd be adjusting for the swerve being a greater factor than the deflection. Do you not agree with that?
Let's use the line of centers as the base line. With an LD you need to aim wider and if that exceeds the default swerve for that shaft, swerve must be added. This complicates the use of an LD shaft. I think its advantage is you can shoot spin shots harder without the unpredictable results (unpredictable reduction of accuracy/changes in line) you'd get with a wall cue. Also since we can almost assume CF materials, they can be fashioned with longer, near cylindrical tapers that facilitate truly linear cue action.
I have tried air pivots, but I honestly cannot do it very accurately or consistently.
I cover this in the full-length SAWS instructional video.
Agreed. With an elevated cue, everything (tip position, cue elevation, shot speed, cloth conditions) has a big effect on the shot outcome. That's why it is best to avoid using sidespin when the cue must be elevated (except with purposeful swerve and masse shots, which require lots of practice, judgement, and feel).
In the SAWS calibration handout, I summarize how to make adjustments for draw, follow, cloth conditions, and cue elevation. All of these effects are also demonstrated in the full-length SAWS instructional video.
Concerning shots that are extra long or extra fast, I definitely adjust my SAWS numbers (decreasing BHE a little for extra long, and increasing BHE a little for extra fast) in these situations.
I'm glad to hear you have had success with SAWS and have even been able to develop some intuition for how to modify SAWS when appropriate.
I also agree that SAWS is probably not for everybody; although, with a little practice, implementing SAWS really doesn't take much thinking or mental effort. You just observe the distance between the CB and OB, visualize the shot speed you plan to use (which is good to do anyway), and do the pivots. I specifically like SAWS because I don't need to really judge or have a feel for how squirt, swerve, and CB deflection vary with shot speed and distance. Having trust in SAWS (and the careful practice I have put in) gives me confidence since I don't need to rely on "intuition" or "feel" when aiming a shot (which can lead to uncertainty or doubt).
Last edited:
If you change shaft or preferred bridge length, you should definitely redo your SAWS calibration. The differences might not be large, but don't you want to be as accurate as possible (without having to attempt to "fudge" things)? It doesn't take long to recalibrate, and it is not too easy to learn a new set of numbers, especially since there are easy ways to remember them, as covered in the full-length SAWS instructional video.
You definitely need to aim differently with shafts that create different amounts of squirt; but if you know how to compensate your aim for CB deflection for a given shaft, any shot can be executed accurately. Some people will like LD shafts better since your aim will be closer to where you actually want the CB to go.
Many things can go wrong with tests like this. For example, if the shafts have different amounts of CB deflection, you need to aim differently with each shaft to send the CB in the same desired direction into the rail. And if the shaft diameters and tip shapes are different, you might have trouble visualizing the tip contact point accurately, creating different amounts of spin (see cue tip shape and size effects). For examples of careful testing (which showed no significant difference over a wide variety of tips), see the "Can a softer tip put more spin on the ball?" and "Does tip hardness have an effect on CB deflection?" sections here:
Last edited: