It's tough anymore because if a standard solid maple shaft has X squirt, and a shaft assembled in a "non-traditional" manner gets <X squirt, then at least it has lower deflection. And of course, half the posters and cue builders don't understand what goes into lowering squirt, so they seem to think that if they just change something (lamination, taper, materials) that it automatically falls into a high performance shaft and low squirt default.
I'd rather go with a standardized test (with input from a mechanical engineer who has actually done study and understands the mechanical physics behind the impact) and use metrics to compare and define what is low squirt, ultra low squirt, reverse squirt...
It's always been about pivot points and effective squirt for me, so since nobody uses those terms (except those who might have been around the initial squirt discussion on USENET and even then, they weren't universal), then metrics won't mean much without yet another 20 page argument on the merit of LD shaft....
That being said, doing the Aim & Pivot Test (which tests effective pivot points, not just squirt offset because it uses an object ball in conjunction with the cue ball), then in general with absolutely no backup to my "definitions", effective squirt or the effective pivot points at:
6" or less seem to be "traditional cue" with some outrageous cues at 4" as produced (certain Vikings and Cuetec, for example)
10-15" seem to be the original "lower squirt" from the Predator 314 ( though people claimed greater than 20"... including me, but I've never been able to replicate with the old 314)
15-20" + is what I'm calling "very low". Some of the newer shafts that quite aren't to the 314-2 level fall into this one.
Pivot Points that go beyond the joint are what I call "ultra low". And those don't need a pivot at all. Certain equipment, the effect is all throw and no squirt (I mean to say, "net throw".)
Freddie <~~~ shoots best with traditional shafts