LD Shafts are bobo, I don't care what you say...

D

Dedeye1209

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This should stir up a good discussion.

I have played with predator, OB, Tiger, and others. They all play solid. But the low-deflection shaft was invented to figure out a way to use junk wood and make money. It is a copout, an excuse not to learn the proper way to age, turn, and stabilize good Shaftwood. A real Cuemaker knows how to make a real, great playing shaft. Don't fall prey to this marketing scam!

No laminated shaft plays as good as a properly made, high growth ring maple one.
 
While I agree that LD shafts are junk (edit, they aren't junk, what they are is unnecessary), the lamination is not the LD part. Laminating is supposed to create a more radially consistent shaft, meaning: no matter what part of the shaft is up or down in your hand during your stroke, you should get the same result from the wood. Laminating wood that comes from a tree fed a science diet so it grows at an unnatural rate is probably not a bad idea. There is no more old growth wood--unless it comes from a bowling alley.

The LD part is the hollow shaft end or the hollow lighter ferrule. Empirically, the lighter end-mass does have beneficial effects, but its very minimal. If you know what you're doing you will not need an LD shaft, and if you like 'em, there's no point in not using them.
 
Last edited:
Dedeye1209 said:
This should stir up a good discussion.

I have played with predator, OB, Tiger, and others. They all play solid. But the low-deflection shaft was invented to figure out a way to use junk wood and make money. It is a copout, an excuse not to learn the proper way to age, turn, and stabilize good Shaftwood. A real Cuemaker knows how to make a real, great playing shaft. Don't fall prey to this marketing scam!

No laminated shaft plays as good as a properly made, high growth ring maple one.
Click to expand...

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, your opinion is based on personal bias not fact. One might say your opinion is "bobo".
 
Dedeye1209 said:
This should stir up a good discussion.

I have played with predator, OB, Tiger, and others. They all play solid. But the low-deflection shaft was invented to figure out a way to use junk wood and make money. It is a copout, an excuse not to learn the proper way to age, turn, and stabilize good Shaftwood. A real Cuemaker knows how to make a real, great playing shaft. Don't fall prey to this marketing scam!

No laminated shaft plays as good as a properly made, high growth ring maple one.
Click to expand...

A low-squirt shaft need not be laminated. And a laminated shaft need not be low squirt. And some "real cuemakers" make non-laminated low-squirt shafts.
 
Yes, I understand the mechanics of a low deflection shaft. What I am saying is that the developers of these products did it to make use of junk wood. In the cue making world, the materials used are basically scrap wood. Charging $250 for scrap lumber and glue is basically fancy marketing taking advantage of an extremely gullible and uneducated consumer base. Their innovation was productive and seems to work. My problem is that it has demeaned the skill of classic cue makers. The shafts from my 1979 Richard Black hit as good or better than any laminated or " low deflection shaft."

And yes, I am aware that this is an opinion, so you don't need to explain what an opinion is to me.
 
Dedeye1209 said:
Yes, I understand the mechanics of a low deflection shaft. What I am saying is that the developers of these products did it to make use of junk wood. In the cue making world, the materials used are basically scrap wood. Charging $250 for scrap lumber and glue is basically fancy marketing taking advantage of an extremely gullible and uneducated consumer base. Their innovation was productive and seems to work. My problem is that it has demeaned the skill of classic cue makers. The shafts from my 1979 Richard Black hit as good or better than any laminated or " low deflection shaft."

And yes, I am aware that this is an opinion, so you don't need to explain what an opinion is to me.
Click to expand...


"LD Shafts are bobo, I don't care what you say..."
"This should stir up a good discussion."
These two statements dont jive. Are you wanting to discuss the shafts, or are you wanting to let everybody know what your opinion is, and not care about what anyone says?

"What I am saying is that the developers of these products did it to make use of junk wood. In the cue making world, the materials used are basically scrap wood. "
The time/labor investment in making a spliced shaft is far more expensive than turning and dipping dowels, and watching them to see if they stay straight. So while yes, some companies such as Predator found ways to use wood that might not be desirable to use as a one piece shaft, they cull and put more work into the shaft than cuemakers like, say Richard Black does his one piece shafts.

"Charging $250 for scrap lumber and glue is basically fancy marketing taking advantage of an extremely gullible and uneducated consumer base."
The price is for a certain consistency and performance. Very few things you buy in this world are priced at the materials cost. Richard Black cues for instance are largely priced based on his name and reputation.
My problem is that it has demeaned the skill of classic cue makers.
Not sure what this means? Who has been demeaned by LD shafts?
"The shafts from my 1979 Richard Black hit as good or better than any laminated or " low deflection shaft."
Glad you found a cue that you enjoy! :smile:

Is the discussion going as you had hoped? :eek::grin-square:
 
I have never played with an LD shaft. I feel if the LD makers were only in it for money, they would have chosen a less research intensive product. They are working to advance the technology of the sport's equipment in my opinion.
 
axejunkie said:
I have never played with an LD shaft. I feel if the LD makers were only in it for money, they would have chosen a less research intensive product. They are working to advance the technology of the sport's equipment in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think you have a point there. I've tried a few LD shafts. I don't like them and I don't play any better with them. While they have been subject to some wild claims in the early days there's enough research now to explain what they hope to achieve with the design. It may not be the choice for everyone but I believe there's a general consensus on how they differ from a regular shaft which may or may not have a high squirt value.
 
L'homme est libre au moment qu'il veut l'etre.

pt...taking advantage of the fact that the OP doesn't care what I say
 
pt109 said:
L'homme est libre au moment qu'il veut l'etre.

pt...taking advantage of the fact that the OP doesn't care what I say
Click to expand...

Un joueur de la piscine est plus heureux quand il est en train de gagner la trésorerie de quelqu'un d'autre .
 
I hate LD's.
Hate the dang things.
Can't see how it "betters" anyone's games as some people claim they do.
I mean, that's their opinion and it's fine but spending time with a well made
solid maple is also going to better ones game.
All that being said I have a Z2 that I sometimes play with and it's the only LD
that comes close to me liking it. Yes, I've tried the others and they - for me -
suck in comparison.
But the real deal is always a well made solid maple shaft.
No compromise necessary. The hit, the feel, everything is just right there in
one shaft.
 
Dedeye1209 said:
This should stir up a good discussion.

I have played with predator, OB, Tiger, and others. They all play solid. But the low-deflection shaft was invented to figure out a way to use junk wood and make money. It is a copout, an excuse not to learn the proper way to age, turn, and stabilize good Shaftwood. A real Cuemaker knows how to make a real, great playing shaft. Don't fall prey to this marketing scam!

No laminated shaft plays as good as a properly made, high growth ring maple one.
Click to expand...

The shafts do what they are designed to do. They give less deflection than a regular maple shaft. I have a custom cue with a very solid, high growth ring shaft, but I must admit I can't play as well with it as with my "matchstick wood" Z2, because I learned to play with ld shafts. The Z2 feels like absolute crap and keeping it clean is a nightmare, but the balls all go in. Well, not all, let's say some.:wink: The Z2 also sometimes makes a funny sound on extreme english shots, where it sounds like something is seriously wrong with the shaft, but the results of those shots are perfect and the shaft is solid. You just have to accept it as part of the package, I guess.

Do I think they overcharge for a product of this quality? Yes absolutely. Do I think the importance of ld shafts is exaggerated? Again, yes. I wish I could get a shaft like my Z2 with decent wood, but I haven't found it yet. Since I learned to play with ld-shafts, changing to solid maple is too hard, too time consuming for me to consider.
 
Dedeye1209 said:
Yes, I understand the mechanics of a low deflection shaft. What I am saying is that the developers of these products did it to make use of junk wood. In the cue making world, the materials used are basically scrap wood. Charging $250 for scrap lumber and glue is basically fancy marketing taking advantage of an extremely gullible and uneducated consumer base. Their innovation was productive and seems to work. My problem is that it has demeaned the skill of classic cue makers. The shafts from my 1979 Richard Black hit as good or better than any laminated or " low deflection shaft."

And yes, I am aware that this is an opinion, so you don't need to explain what an opinion is to me.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the mechanics of LD shafts or you'd understand that LD and laminated/radial segmented shafts are mutually exclusive. Just because almost all laminated/radial segmented shafts are made to minimize cueball squirt doesn't mean that a solid shaft can't have LD properties.

I also have a problem with some of the marketing claims and believe that no company has shown enough due diligence to make many of their claims, but it is a minor problem because I am a firm believer in 'caveat emptor' and anyone who buys into marketing claims without doing their own homework should live with the consequence.

As far as using 'junk wood'...well, show me what 'junk wood' is and maybe I'll agree. I have shafts with sugar spots, low grain count, grain that runs off in the middle of the shaft, etc. that would be considered substandard shaft wood and they play great. I've also got a shaft that would, by looks, weight, grain count, etc. be considered nearly the pinnacle of shaft wood that kinda sucks.

Suffice to say that I don't really believe we know what 'junk wood' is.

Let's say that these manufacturers do in fact take junk wood and turn it into a product that repeatedly has similar results (which I think they do, in my experience). Let's also then presume that these results are within the acceptable limits of what is necessary to play great pool (in fact, I contend they are--I had my fastest break and run ever, less than a minute from the time I broke until I made the last ball). If these two points are true, then they have done the world a service.

Whether that product is worth the money is up to the consumer.

As a proviso...I am not replying to the OP...I believe he is an alias for someone else on this forum or simply a troll looking to stir chili. I am replying because I know there are a lot of people who poo-poo the efforts made by some respectable companies. While I don't use laminated/radial splice shafts, I applaud their investment and contribution to furthering the technology of our sport.
 
Maybe it's because I'm 20, and maybe it's because I don't have nearly as much experience as you extensively testing LDs vs. Standard Shafts but who cares one way or the other?

I play better with an LD because it's designed to do what it's intended to. I played with a PureX shaft and then had Steve Klapp make me an LD shaft with my sneaky. I've played with other peoples cues, and when I'm told they are standard maple I adjust my aim with an educated guess that is right more often than not.

If you play better with a standard maple, then stick to it and I'm happy for you. I play better with an LD and I'm happy with it. Why start a debate on a topic where most people don't care which shaft you prefer one way or the other.

GREENIE FOR CHUCK.
 
The majority of non LD shafts I've played with suck. Cannot understand what you all see in them. He only lively one i found was for a cue costing less than 50 dollars. The others play like lead pipes.

Modernity is a great thing.
 
Dedeye1209 said:
This should stir up a good discussion.

I have played with predator, OB, Tiger, and others. They all play solid. But the low-deflection shaft was invented to figure out a way to use junk wood and make money. It is a copout, an excuse not to learn the proper way to age, turn, and stabilize good Shaftwood. A real Cuemaker knows how to make a real, great playing shaft. Don't fall prey to this marketing scam!

No laminated shaft plays as good as a properly made, high growth ring maple one.
Click to expand...
I don't know what bobo means, so not gonna argue with you. :D

But as an opinionated cue wood expert, do you have any insights into ash v maple for shafts. Ash is seen as the bees knees in the smaller ball billiard sports and I never understood why, other than the pointy grain looks pretty cool. Nearly every one I've ever tried feels flimsy and whipy compared to my maple shafts.

Cheers,
Colin
 
pt109 said:
L'homme est libre au moment qu'il veut l'etre.

pt...taking advantage of the fact that the OP doesn't care what I say
Click to expand...


Probably won't care about this one, either:

Les opinions ont plus causé de maux sur ce petit globe que la peste et les tremblements de terre.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top