Low deflection rant

[JB Cases]

People often claim that the shaft is responsible for draw (or English), but the shaft is usually not the root cause. For more info, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#spin​

Regards,
Dave

PS: If you can execute a good and consistent draw shot, it is because you have a good stroke (per draw shot technique) and are achieving a low tip contact point on the CB. It ain't the shaft. Give yourself some credit.

But people can surely feel when they get more or less with one cue or the other.

Pat and I had this discussion as well and while I agree with him that IF the tip does contact the ball at EXACTLY the same position the speed/spin ratio is ALL due to the speed at which the ball is struck, we came to a tentative agreement that perhaps the people who get "more" spin using one cue vs. another are seeing that because the smaller tip/different taper might be causing the tip to actually hit the ball at a different spot. (sorry for the long sentence).

In other words a Z with a constant taper might send the tip to a lower position using the same relative address to the cueball than say a Joss shaft with a pro-taper. (whatever a pro-taper really is anyway).

I think that this is a huge part of why some cues seem to spin the ball better.

PERSONALLY though I had one major experience that makes me wonder.

Back in the mid 90's I owned a billiard supply store in Ilshofen Germany. We had more than 100 cues on the rack surrounding a Marc Lehmacher pool table. Of those cues I had two that were nearly identical in appearance BUT different in construction. Both were from an Italian cuemaker, not Longoni. One was constructed for pool with a steel pin in the butt and a shaft tapered similar to a Joss. The other was constructed for billiards with a big wood pin and a billiard cue straight taper. The pool cue had a 13mm tip and the billiard cue had an 11mm tip.

One day, playing around with trick shots I was trying the one where the cueball makes a ball and then doubles the rail all the way back down the table to make the other ball. With the pool cue I could not make this shot. I could get the cueball to double maybe twice at best.

With the billiard cue I could easily get the cue ball to double the rail two to three times every time and I could make the shot probably 3 times out of ten. I never made it with the pool cue.

So I still think that the overall construction of the cue has something to do with what it does to the ball - even when the ball is struck in the same place. How much that is I don't know.

But I lean more towards Pat's idea that the taper and "apparent" contact point has more to do with getting more or less spin on the cue ball.

 

[iusedtoberich]

http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVB-1.htm

At 6:00, does Mike Page really put a pair of vise grips on a Tim Scruggs cue? If so, he goes far in the name of science. lol.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Yes -- Buddy Hall.

I just watched a few of his shots on youtube. I did not notice him paying attention to the shaft orientation. One video was from 1988, the other from 2003. I'll admit, it is hard to see this in the videos, however.

How do you know Buddy does this?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Regarding snooker cues, the flat on the butt has always been there (due to tradition perhaps?). I agree, due to that flat, the shaft will be oriented the same way. Do any modern snooker pros play with a cue that does not have the flat? I don't know as I don't watch snooker.

Regarding specific players that orient the cue, I'll concede there might be a few. However, of pro players, I'd hypothesize that the vast majority of them pay no attention to a shaft's orientation. I've seen pro players even spin the cue in their fingertips while shooting (every warm up stroke). Of us amateurs on this forum, I think if we did a poll, the overwhelming majority would say they don't pay any attention.

You mention "the science behind the concept is clear".

I also agree the science is clear, however I conclude the opposite that you conclude.

Dr. Dave's test result Here (scroll down to diagram 3) proves that it does not matter on a Meucci flat laminated shaft which way the shaft is oriented when measuring squirt. The theory suggests that a flat laminated shaft such as the Meucci would be the worst offender of radial orientation shot outcome differences.

Common sense tells us a flat laminated shaft would be stiffer in one direction than another. I agree to that, but also as shown by Dr Dave, the stiffness has no affect on squirt. Only endmass does.

What about spin on the ball? The test Patrick Johnson has created proves that as long as you hit the ball in the same spot, and the cueball leaves at the same angle and speed, the spin is the same.

The conclusion I form from this science is that:
1. Shaft stiffness does not affect deflection amount, only endmass does.
2. Shaft differences (tip, taper, weight, stiffness) do not affect spin on the cue ball (only contact location on cue ball does).
3. Based on 1 and 2, it make no difference to the cueball path how you orient a shaft radially, assuming there is a stiffness difference in the radial orientation of the shaft.

Yes. Snooker Pros use the flat part at the butt end to orient their cue so that it is the same each time.

I purchased a Cog that had been Jimmy Reid's and it was marked just below the ferrule on each shaft so that it could be oriented each shot.

I was told that a lot of older players do this.

Radial consistency is not meaningless. I have had more than a few pros swear by low deflection radially consistent shafts.

The science behind the concept is clear. Whether or not the claims made by all the sellers of laminated shafts are true or not is another story and one that the average person cannot verify.

In another thread GetMeThere postulates that we need accuracy of .004" to make shots. Or something like that. So it should be obvious that any time the equipment produces a variable offset greater than that with different shaft orientations then in certain situations a shot which is otherwise "on" when aimed can missed.

Now you take someone like Efren and he uses the rails a lot with pocket speed. I sometimes think he hits the rails higher than it's even possible to do and make the shots and yet he still makes the shots. I am pretty sure he isn't using an LD or laminated shaft.

I think that he is just so dialed in that his stroke and speed make up for the inherent inconsistency in a one piece shaft. And of course all pieces of wood and how they are dried are not equal.

I have been to Predator's shop several times and they showed me how they test the shafts. Once someone can see it in action it's pretty clear that they are right. I have seen Bob Meucci's set up and as long as it's done fairly, i.e. no tweaking for certain cues then it seems like a fair test.

I still detest the way that Predator shafts feel. I can zip the cueball all around the table with one but I can't stand it. I like the Tiger X-Pro and the Fury Extreme shafts though because they feel like a shaft ought to in my opinion.

Like Mike though I put a lot more stock in radial consistency than I do in low deflection. If the deflection is constant then the player only needs to learn his shaft. While theoretically zero deflection would equal zero compensation when using sidespin I think that most players would opt for higher deflection as long as it's consistent to get a shaft with a better hit.

 

[JB Cases]

Regarding snooker cues, the flat on the butt has always been there (due to tradition perhaps?). I agree, due to that flat, the shaft will be oriented the same way. Do any modern snooker pros play with a cue that does not have the flat? I don't know as I don't watch snooker.

Regarding specific players that orient the cue, I'll concede there might be a few. However, of pro players, I'd hypothesize that the vast majority of them pay no attention to a shaft's orientation. I've seen pro players even spin the cue in their fingertips while shooting (every warm up stroke). Of us amateurs on this forum, I think if we did a poll, the overwhelming majority would say they don't pay any attention.

You mention "the science behind the concept is clear".

I also agree the science is clear, however I conclude the opposite that you conclude.

Dr. Dave's test result Here (scroll down to diagram 3) proves that it does not matter on a Meucci flat laminated shaft which way the shaft is oriented when measuring squirt. The theory suggests that a flat laminated shaft such as the Meucci would be the worst offender of radial orientation shot outcome differences.

Common sense tells us a flat laminated shaft would be stiffer in one direction than another. I agree to that, but also as shown by Dr Dave, the stiffness has no affect on squirt. Only endmass does.

What about spin on the ball? The test Patrick Johnson has created proves that as long as you hit the ball in the same spot, and the cueball leaves at the same angle and speed, the spin is the same.

The conclusion I form from this science is that:
1. Shaft stiffness does not affect deflection amount, only endmass does.
2. Shaft differences (tip, taper, weight, stiffness) do not affect spin on the cue ball (only contact location on cue ball does).
3. Based on 1 and 2, it make no difference to the cueball path how you orient a shaft radially, assuming there is a stiffness difference in the radial orientation of the shaft.

Predator's experiments showed first that the amount of deflection changes when the cue is rotated. Thus radial consistency matters.

That's the variance in amount in a single cue.

Now the next part is to lower the AMOUNT of deflection to a level as near to zero while still having a piece of equipment that is usable.

This is where endmass comes in. Predator figured out the endmass thing long ago. 314 refers to the amount of versions they went through to get to a shaft that had an appreciable amount of deflection reduction, was consistent no matter the orientation, and was still usable in play.

Regarding the Meucci flat laminated shaft I think that it's clear that it would be stiffer one way than the other but how much stiffer? This is the data we don't know. We don't know the span of difference. Maybe in this shaft the difference is too small to matter.

I am certain that some cue makers make shafts that end up with very near to radial consistency without intending to. This could be a result of how they select the wood and age it combined with how they turn it. I don't know.

There is still a lot of data missing in this whole debate and this is enough for the marketers of laminated shafts to use to their advantage. The fact of it is though that Predator's machine works and the results are repeatable.

They can set up any shot you want and put any cue in it and once the shot is "dialed" in they will make the ball 100 out of 100 times.

Turn the cue a quarter turn and the same shot will be missed. Sometimes the cue ball will completely miss the object ball.

So deflection does vary depending on cue orientation. I think that most players who use non-laminated shafts either get used to certain middle ground that they gravitate to for aiming to account for the "average" deflection in their cue or they just blame themselves for missed shots when in fact the cue may have been the main reason.

Some days I wish I Predator had never come along.

When I was 18 I was very happy to play with normal one piece shafts and when I was on I was on.

I am not sure but I THINK that the phenomena of inconsistent deflection has been known for more than a hundred years and that people made laminated shafts around a hundred years ago in attempts to minimize it. If I remember correctly Predator's real work is only around the end-mass and not the laminated shaft itself. I am sure correction is forthcoming.

I have a bunch of patents saved - just glanced through them quickly and didn't see one for laminated shafts dating that far back but I am fairly sure that there were some somewhere between 1900-1920 pertaining to this.

I kind of think ignorance is bliss when it comes to this subject. But I am not ignorant of it anymore and so it's one more thing to blame when I miss

The conclusion I form from this science is that:
1. Shaft stiffness does not affect deflection amount, only endmass does.
2. Shaft differences (tip, taper, weight, stiffness) do not affect spin on the cue ball (only contact location on cue ball does).
3. Based on 1 and 2, it make no difference to the cueball path how you orient a shaft radially, assuming there is a stiffness difference in the radial orientation of the shaft.

1. Disagree - Predator's experiments show different results when Iron Willie is used. in the hands of a human being I suspect that it matters less since humans are using all their faculties to "adjust" as they perform.

2. Agreed. However a person using two different shafts can think that they are hitting the ball in the same place but the difference in tip size/taper might lead them to actually contact the cueball in a different place leading to the erroneous conclusion that one shaft applies more spin than the other.

3. Disagee - if the shaft flexes differently when force is applied in different orientations then it's safe to assume that there will be a different amount of deflection however small. That amount can be increased or decreased based on the shooter's stroke and grip. A tighter grip adds weight and a looser grip decreases weight. Similar to Mike Page's vice grips. Rafael Martinez spent a good two hours once in a clinic teaching us the mechanics of stroke and grip and how it affects the results. He showed us many shots with the same setup and different approaches to get different results. I wish like hell I still had the tape of that session because it is invaluable information.

 

[justadub]

Predator's experiments showed first that the amount of deflection changes when the cue is rotated. Thus radial consistency matters.

{edited}

Turn the cue a quarter turn and the same shot will be missed. Sometimes the cue ball will completely miss the object ball.

So deflection does vary depending on cue orientation.

PLEASE forgive me for being so ignorant. I am going to ask what must be a very dumb question.

Given what JB has posted above (and others in various posts) does this mean that there is a specific part of the cue that has to be "up"? Like a sight on a rifle, perhaps? You can't just pick it up and shoot with it, you have to roll it until the proper "side" is in the "up " position?

I haven't gotten into any sort of "nice" cue yet, still playing with a cheapy that was a gift to me. These threads most certainly help me learn what is what. I do have a new McDermott on order, and while that ain't necessarily a high-end cue (and I'm getting one of their lower priced G-core models, far less than some of their stuff) it will most definetely be a major change and improvement for me. Will the G-core be subject to some of these "low-deflection" discussions that have gone on here in this thread?

Again, please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but clarification would be appreciated. I don't recall seeing this point addressed in other threads I've read over the last year or so that I've been visiting AZB.
Thanks!

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Regarding specific players that orient the cue, I'll concede there might be a few. However, of pro players, I'd hypothesize that the vast majority of them pay no attention to a shaft's orientation. I've seen pro players even spin the cue in their fingertips while shooting (every warm up stroke). Of us amateurs on this forum, I think if we did a poll, the overwhelming majority would say they don't pay any attention.

Did you ever think that they might be spinning it to a specific position?

I think a lot of players are, and do it subconsciously, almost second nature.
Couple of reasons why.

It is rare that one gets a perfectly straight shaft, and if it is straight, it's rare that it doesn't develop some type of wobble after time.
At least that is my opinion.

There is always some slight wobble after a little time playing with it, and sometimes there is just a little, the slightest bit of extra meat near the base of the shaft taper, on one side, more then the other, where the shaft would be in someones fingers, the end of someones stroke.
I assume that this is due to manufacturing, but you see it all the time. Even in high end products.

But if there is just the slightest amount of extra wood near the base of the taper, that can FEEL like a world of difference. Like it is going UP or down ever so slightly, depending, because of that little difference.
I know one shaft i have, that plays just fantastic. BUT, for whatever reason, defect, manufacturing issue, sanding issue, it swelling due to me spilling stuff on my case, it has a little more meat on one side at the base of the taper.

I will get down on a shot, and immediately know if it is on the right side of the shaft or not, just because of the movement on the tip.
If it isn't, i will spin it in my fingers as i take some practice strokes, until the orientation is correct.

Honestly, i don't think one side has a sweet spot over the other, but i do know that my delivery can change, due to that slight difference, and when i am going for extreme english shots, that can wreck havoc.
By rotating the cue till the shaft strokes in the orientation that i desire, i am in a way, pursuing comfort, and a form of consistency.

Just like when whoever came out with that spot on the spine of the shaft.
I know players who initially made a conscious effort to rotate the spine of the cue to north and south positions on the shaft when stroking (because they didn't want to pay money for a dot), and then once they learned the landmarks on their cue, (shaft blemishes, point and inlay orientation, AND stroke endpoint because of a shaft thickness discrepancy) they would after a while, automatically SPIN their cue to proper orientation, and only deliver the final stroke once it was in the right place.

I would imagine that it happens at a higher level of pool, then most imagine.

 

[sfleinen]

PLEASE forgive me for being so ignorant. I am going to ask what must be a very dumb question.

Given what JB has posted above (and others in various posts) does this mean that there is a specific part of the cue that has to be "up"? Like a sight on a rifle, perhaps? You can't just pick it up and shoot with it, you have to roll it until the proper "side" is in the "up " position?

I haven't gotten into any sort of "nice" cue yet, still playing with a cheapy that was a gift to me. These threads most certainly help me learn what is what. I do have a new McDermott on order, and while that ain't necessarily a high-end cue (and I'm getting one of their lower priced G-core models, far less than some of their stuff) it will most definetely be a major change and improvement for me. Will the G-core be subject to some of these "low-deflection" discussions that have gone on here in this thread?

Again, please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but clarification would be appreciated. I don't recall seeing this point addressed in other threads I've read over the last year or so that I've been visiting AZB.
Thanks!

justadub:

Just as Superstar eloquently expressed above, the answer is a qualified YES. I say qualified, because it depends on the shaft itself. For instance:

• Snooker cues. Not just because of the flattened/chamfered cut-out on the butt of the cue (which was originally intended to allow clearance for the heel of the grip hand not to "bump into" and throw off the line of the shot), but also because you'll see snooker players consciously ensuring the "chevrons" of the ash shaft are located on top. (They're sort of like a airport runway markers.)
  
• Meucci Red/Black Dot shafts. These are horizontally-laminated shafts (think plywood, but obviously higher-quality wood makes up the layers). The red or black dot is placed on the shaft to help the player orient the laminations the same way, according to his/her feel preference, as well as to reduce deflection (or to keep it the same predictable amount).

Wood, as we all know, has a grain, and even in the best "cuts" of wood, there are imperfections throughout. It's an imperfect medium. So cue manufacturers such as Tiger Products, Meucci, Predator, Owen-Bunnell, Han Bat Cue (in Korea -- they have an interesting "Plus Five" technology that reverses the pie slices so the "pith"/center of the wood points outwards), et al. have come out with ways of distributing the imperfections in the wood so they're less concentrated in one spot, less likely to affect the shot, and minimizing deflection.

Hope this is helpful!
-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

PLEASE forgive me for being so ignorant. I am going to ask what must be a very dumb question.

Given what JB has posted above (and others in various posts) does this mean that there is a specific part of the cue that has to be "up"? Like a sight on a rifle, perhaps? You can't just pick it up and shoot with it, you have to roll it until the proper "side" is in the "up " position?

I haven't gotten into any sort of "nice" cue yet, still playing with a cheapy that was a gift to me. These threads most certainly help me learn what is what. I do have a new McDermott on order, and while that ain't necessarily a high-end cue (and I'm getting one of their lower priced G-core models, far less than some of their stuff) it will most definetely be a major change and improvement for me. Will the G-core be subject to some of these "low-deflection" discussions that have gone on here in this thread?

Again, please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but clarification would be appreciated. I don't recall seeing this point addressed in other threads I've read over the last year or so that I've been visiting AZB.
Thanks!

The makers of the Tip Pik, Mr. Billiards aka Billiards Direct, used to offer a shaft marking service where they would test your shaft's "spine" and then inlay a dot into it so that you could orient your shaft the same way every time.

I don't think that they had a lot of business with this as most people could do the same thing with a sharpie if they wanted to.

12 Squared, Dave Gross, on here can verify what I said about Jimmy Reid's cog because he bought it from me. Jimmy had used a marker to make a dot near the base of the ferrule.

It stands to reason that if your shaft is oriented the same way every time then your deflection should be the same every time with the exception of how you might alter it by virtue of your grip.

As I said before Predator could set up a shot and make it forever as long as it was dialed in and the cue wasn't rotated.

I think anyone could test this for themselves as well. Set up a real shot and get an assistant. Mark a chalk line for the GB contact and shoot the shot using 1 tip of left spin and adjust until you can make it every time with the cue oriented in one direction. Us a little sticker to make sure the cue is in the same position.

Once the shot is dialed in with one tip left and you can make it consistently - all aim lines marked with chalk - then spin your cue a quarter turn and hit it with one tip left and see what happens. Do this all the way around.

I think if you did this then you would get a decent feel for whether your cue is pretty close all the way around or if it has a fairly wide range of deflection at different orientations.

Just to throw another concept into the mix for fun.

If your cue has a range of deflections then it could be a plus IF you knew what they were and when to use them. There might be times when you would want a high deflection and other times a low deflection. Don't ask me what those times would be but it might be funny to see a person with his shaft marked based on the deflection amounts.

And another thing I don't really know how pivot point plays into this either because IF cues really do have a wide range depending on orientation then I suppose that the pivot point also changes with orientation.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were all still ignorant of these concepts?

I think I would enjoy pool more if I were.

 

[Cornerman]

This is where endmass comes in. Predator figured out the endmass thing long ago.

I thought it was Steve Titus and Clawson Cues. Or did Clawson turn into Predator?

314 refers to the amount of versions they went through to get to a shaft that had an appreciable amount of deflection reduction,

Really? I just assumed it had to do with pi.

Fred <~~~ doesn't need to know, but would like to know

 

[Cornerman]

Did you ever think that they might be spinning it to a specific position?

I certainly do. But I'm thinking it has more to do with balance, taper, and feel in the hands as opposed to squirt in that radial orientation.

Fred <~~~ not a pro nor plays one on tv nor stayed at a Holiday Inn

 

[AtLarge]

I just watched a few of his shots on youtube. I did not notice him paying attention to the shaft orientation. One video was from 1988, the other from 2003. I'll admit, it is hard to see this in the videos, however.

How do you know Buddy does this?

Lots of people know that Buddy marked his shafts. I spoke with him about it once, maybe 10-20 years ago. I seem to recall that the way he oriented the shaft was not just about the direction of the grain lines, because he would hold the cue upright in one hand and bounce it against the other open hand and observe the vibrations. But my memory of that is fuzzy.

Now this doesn't mean that he paid attention to shaft orientation on every shot in every game, match, and video. Nor do I know when he started doing this or whether it was sporadic during his career.

I also think that Bob Meucci got his idea for "dotting" his shafts from Buddy Hall. The red-dot shafts are not laminated; the black-dot shafts are laminated. Bob told me that the dot is less important on the black-dot shafts, i.e., they are more radially consistent than the red-dot shafts.

 

[poolplayer2093]

But people can surely feel when they get more or less with one cue or the other.

Pat and I had this discussion as well and while I agree with him that IF the tip does contact the ball at EXACTLY the same position the speed/spin ratio is ALL due to the speed at which the ball is struck, we came to a tentative agreement that perhaps the people who get "more" spin using one cue vs. another are seeing that because the smaller tip/different taper might be causing the tip to actually hit the ball at a different spot. (sorry for the long sentence).

In other words a Z with a constant taper might send the tip to a lower position using the same relative address to the cueball than say a Joss shaft with a pro-taper. (whatever a pro-taper really is anyway).

I think that this is a huge part of why some cues seem to spin the ball better.

PERSONALLY though I had one major experience that makes me wonder.

Back in the mid 90's I owned a billiard supply store in Ilshofen Germany. We had more than 100 cues on the rack surrounding a Marc Lehmacher pool table. Of those cues I had two that were nearly identical in appearance BUT different in construction. Both were from an Italian cuemaker, not Longoni. One was constructed for pool with a steel pin in the butt and a shaft tapered similar to a Joss. The other was constructed for billiards with a big wood pin and a billiard cue straight taper. The pool cue had a 13mm tip and the billiard cue had an 11mm tip.

One day, playing around with trick shots I was trying the one where the cueball makes a ball and then doubles the rail all the way back down the table to make the other ball. With the pool cue I could not make this shot. I could get the cueball to double maybe twice at best.

With the billiard cue I could easily get the cue ball to double the rail two to three times every time and I could make the shot probably 3 times out of ten. I never made it with the pool cue.

So I still think that the overall construction of the cue has something to do with what it does to the ball - even when the ball is struck in the same place. How much that is I don't know.

But I lean more towards Pat's idea that the taper and "apparent" contact point has more to do with getting more or less spin on the cue ball.

i was able to draw the cb a lot easier with the alpha shaft i had a few months back. way easier that with my conventional wood shaft!

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I thought it was Steve Titus and Clawson Cues. Or did Clawson turn into Predator?




Really? I just assumed it had to do with pi.

Fred <~~~ doesn't need to know, but would like to know

Fred,

The Pi thing makes more sense...that is what I thought too..."radially laminated" and all..

KMRUNOUT

 

[justadub]

Superstar, Sean and JB... thanks for the replies. Quite helpful. And I need all the help I can get!

 

[slyfox]

I skimmed through the thread... IMHO
I have to agree with fcee06 up front. You should have faith in your equipment. I have been playing for exactly a year. I am friends with guys like alot of you that might play in Master's Citys and go to Vegas every year. There seems to be a schism obviously.
I played with an OB2 for a while. It was alot easier to get a ton of draw, english, throw etc. I now play with a standard hard maple old growth shaft that in my mind is superior.

But that's the thing... it's in my mind that it is superior. I think you have to feel comfortable with what you are playing with. Just like the old cliche, if almost any of us played the top pros, they should beat us with a house cue. The quality of player and what they feel comfortable with should be the main thing. If you like LD... go for it. I like to think you need to have the feel that feels comfortable when you hit a ball. Then again, I like wood-to-wood joints, big metal pins, maple shafts, and breaking with my shooting cue. Maybe I'm an old man stuck in a young man's body. :wink:
Play what feels right to you. No need for people to be arguing all day long about it. I do have a problem with people saying LD is better and ranting and raving about why everyone needs a LD shaft.
I know what feels right to me... and I hope you play with what's good for you. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before.
Just my humble opinion. Thanks.

 

[AtLarge]

...Maybe I'm an old man stuck in a young man's body. ...

Sounds ideal to me.

 

[Gregmc]

Very interesting and informative thread I brought a Lucasi Hybrid about two years ago and was a little bewildered that I couldn't make a ball with it. I was about to put it down but then got the hang of it I like the feel and hit with it. I brought a second shaft for it a 13mm and I feel it has improved my game
but I will say it is not the most attractive cue I own.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

I certainly do. But I'm thinking it has more to do with balance, taper, and feel in the hands as opposed to squirt in that radial orientation.

Fred <~~~ not a pro nor plays one on tv nor stayed at a Holiday Inn

I agree with you 100%.
Most of the people that i know who rotate the shaft, are looking for a "comfort" spot that doesn't feel awkward, due to taper issues, or a balance thing.
Sometimes it even has to do with the BUTT of the cue, being slightly thicker on one side then the other, and that is what messes with their head while stroking, and they rotate it till it doesn't feel weird.

Very few that i know have done that whole North and South spine of the cue thing, and they only picked up that habit when that spine issue was all the rage.
It just happened to stick with them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I participated in this experiment. I just want to use this opportunity to verify that no matter if you use:

phenolic
sniper
moori
lepro
jump cue
house cue
break cue

...that if you hit the cueball in the same place, and the cueball travels along the same initial path, and the cueball travels the same distance, the spin will be exactly the same.

A common belief is that because cues with different squirt ratings hit the cue ball at different angles (to compensate for squirt), they produce different amounts of spin. The fallacy of this is that no matter what the cue's squirt rating or the angle at which it hits the CB, the net direction of the stroke+squirt force is (of course) the same: the cue ball path. The CB can't tell if a shaft is LD or not.

pj
chgo