Meucci Black Dot Bullseye Shaft

SpiderWebComm

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Based on Corey's Meucci post, I checked out Meucci's website and where they talk about their new shaft. Before everyone blindly goes-off about how they dislike Meucci because they play with a $10k custom cue.... has anyone actually watched their "Iron-Byron"-style test videos with this new shaft?

I watched about 6 of them so far and I couldn't believe my eyes. I would LOVE for the OB-1, Predator, Universal Smart Shaft, or other premium shaft makers to view Meucci's test videos and comment here. Based on their robotic arm (which looked pretty scientific to me), the Walmart-purchased broom with a Meucci Black Dot Bullseye shaft had about 45% less deflection than Predator... and a LOT less deflection than other premium shafts when a real butt is used.

For the record, I pay little attention to the shaft "deflection wars" since I play with the shaft that came w/ my cue -- and pocket balls just fine. I'm DYING to know what other manufacturers have to say about Meucci's tests. In my opinion, they're very compelling. Looks like the broomstick with Meucci's shaft can spot Predator the world. Your thoughts?
 
First and foremost you have to realize that is their website! They are trying to sell you something, so of course they are going to make it out to be the best thing in the world.

As far as radial consistency they can't touch OB-1 or Predator, I might even put Tiger in with this one too, but I have never shot with a Tiger (Just basing it on the construction method.)

Now if you look at the Black dot there is a reason the black dot is on it. You are supposed to put that black dot upright in order to get the same deflection out of it every time.

Now what if we turn that Black dot 10 degrees? All of a sudden there will be a different amount of deflection. And what if you rotate it 90 degrees from where the black dot is supposed to be? All of a sudden you have a totally different hit all together.

Now some people may not notice it, and it may not be that big of deal either.

However, I think if your shaft is the most radial consistent then you are playing with the most consistent shaft on the market. Then it couldn't help but help you become more consistent.

I don't think anyone does this better than OB-1. That is just my thoughts on it, but you think what you want.

Also if you check out the test done by a non biased party like platinum billiards, you will see the black dot rates lower than Predator and OB-1.

They even used the same type of test as Meucci!

There is no maple shaft that is radial consistent. The two closest companies that have achieved this the best are OB-1 and Predator. I think OB-1 has done a better job though.
 
Last edited:
txplshrk said:
First and foremost you have to realize that is their website! They are trying to sell you something, so of course they are going to make it out to be the best thing in the world.

As far as radial consistency they can't touch OB-1 or Predator, I might even put Tiger in with this one too, but I have never shot with a Tiger (Just basing it on the construction method.)

Now if you look at the Black dot there is a reason the black dot is on it. You are supposed to put that black dot upright in order to get the same deflection out of it every time.

Now what if we turn that Black dot 10 degrees? All of a sudden there will be a different amount of deflection. And what if you rotate it 90 degrees from where the black dot is supposed to be? All of a sudden you have a totally different hit all together.

Now some people may not notice it, and it may not be that big of deal either.

However, I think if your shaft is the most radial consistent then you are playing with the most consistent shaft on the market.

I don't think anyone does this better than OB-1. That is just my thoughts on it, but you think what you want.

Also if you check out the test done by a non biased party like platinum billiards, you will see the black dot rates lower than Predator and OB-1.

They even used the same type of test as Meucci!
Click to expand...

That's not true - their earlier shaft was like that-- you do not need to keep the dot upright. This new shaft is 35 layers of laminated wood. Understood - it's their website and they're trying to sell something, and I'm NOT trying to sell their stuff. The robot arm with impact tape is pretty compelling. The reason why I posted it is I wanted to hear from the OB1, tiger and predator guys. Go watch how well predators shaft sized up against theirs using a robotic arm for consistency. OB1 and Predator should do a robot arm test against their black dot and see how things work out. "ASSUMING" Meucci didn't rig the robot arm and kept this test fair, Predator has no chance. I'd like to see how the OB1 fairs, however.

Any one who has no clue what I'm talking about - take 5 mins to go watch those test videos.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
That's not true - their earlier shaft was like that-- you do not need to keep the dot upright. This new shaft is 35 layers of laminated wood. Understood - it's their website and they're trying to sell something, and I'm NOT trying to sell their stuff. The robot arm with impact tape is pretty compelling. The reason why I posted it is I wanted to hear from the OB1, tiger and predator guys. Go watch how well predators shaft sized up against theirs using a robotic arm for consistency. OB1 and Predator should do a robot arm test against their black dot and see how things work out. "ASSUMING" Meucci didn't rig the robot arm and kept this test fair, Predator has no chance. I'd like to see how the OB1 fairs, however.

Any one who has no clue what I'm talking about - take 5 mins to go watch those test videos.
Click to expand...

Hey pipe down and listen for a minute jr!

Platinum billiards did this test themselves with the robotic arm and Muecci didn't even beat the Predator!

So what do you have to say about that?

Also think about how the shaft is made! 35 layers! stack those layers on top of one another and then make a shaft! So that means it will have more or less deflection depending on if those laminates are held vertical or horizontal!

As far as radial consistency is concerned this is worse than a stock maple shaft!

The only ones with the most radial consistency is OB-1, then followed by Predator.

Now predator might deflect less, but I will take the radial consistency over the deflection any day!

Apparently I am going to have to do this test the right way in order to show everyone out there what I am talking about. This way we can prove that OB-1 is the most consistent, and Predator has the least amount of deflection.

Oh, and one more thing any scientist will tell you that you want to make a test as simple as possible. Meaning you want the least amount of variables. Meaning that you wouldn't want the object ball! You would only want the cue ball in order to perform this test. If the Object ball and cue ball aren't positioned perfect it can skew the test! (Not saying they did that of course! LOL)
 
txplshrk said:
Hey pipe down and listen for a minute jr!

Platinum billiards did this test themselves with the robotic arm and Muecci didn't even beat the Predator!

So what do you have to say about that?

Also think about how the shaft is made! 35 layers! stack those layers on top of one another and then make a shaft! So that means it will have more or less deflection depending on if those laminates are held vertical or horizontal!

As far as radial consistency is concerned this is worse than a stock maple shaft!

The only ones with the most radial consistency is OB-1, then followed by Predator.

Now predator might deflect less, but I will take the radial consistency over the deflection any day!

Apparently I am going to have to do this test the right way in order to show everyone out there what I am talking about. This way we can prove that OB-1 is the most consistent, and Predator has the least amount of deflection.

Oh, and one more thing any scientist will tell you that you want to make a test as simple as possible. Meaning you want the least amount of variables. Meaning that you wouldn't want the object ball! You would only want the cue ball in order to perform this test. If the Object ball and cue ball aren't positioned perfect it can skew the test! (Not saying they did that of course! LOL)
Click to expand...


Dave,
I concur with txplshrk on this one. Get with Shane Sinnott of Platinum Billiards and he will tell you the results of the tests he performed - you will be surprised at what he will tell you about this subject - and its the truth.
 
I own two black dot shafts but rarely use them nowadays. Meucci's test with the robot is pretty straight forward. However, when you change tips, the results will change. Why? Because the amount of spin imparted to the cue ball when shot will vary depending on the tip. Some tips simply produce more spin than others, at least that has been my experience. For those tests to have real validity, IMHO, they would need to replace the tips on each of the shafts with say, a Moori medium, or some other quality tip, and shape each tip to the same radius, break it in properly, and then do the test. Now that would be an interesting test, for sure. Part of the problem with the way their test is rigged up is that we are looking at the result of cue ball squirt, plus whatever swerve might influence the cue ball's path, plus throw on the object ball. Lots of variables there, so to make it really fair, they should change all the tips, break them in, and perform the tests not only at one speed but at say, lag speed, 1.5 times lag speed, 2 times lag speed, and really firm, and warp or break speed.

Will they do all that?

Don't hold your breath.

Flex
 
txplshrk said:
Hey pipe down and listen for a minute jr!

Platinum billiards did this test themselves with the robotic arm and Muecci didn't even beat the Predator!

So what do you have to say about that?

Also think about how the shaft is made! 35 layers! stack those layers on top of one another and then make a shaft! So that means it will have more or less deflection depending on if those laminates are held vertical or horizontal!

As far as radial consistency is concerned this is worse than a stock maple shaft!

The only ones with the most radial consistency is OB-1, then followed by Predator.

Now predator might deflect less, but I will take the radial consistency over the deflection any day!

Apparently I am going to have to do this test the right way in order to show everyone out there what I am talking about. This way we can prove that OB-1 is the most consistent, and Predator has the least amount of deflection.

Oh, and one more thing any scientist will tell you that you want to make a test as simple as possible. Meaning you want the least amount of variables. Meaning that you wouldn't want the object ball! You would only want the cue ball in order to perform this test. If the Object ball and cue ball aren't positioned perfect it can skew the test! (Not saying they did that of course! LOL)
Click to expand...

I actually agree with what you're trying to say (removing variables such as the CB). Not sure if I like your "Jr." comment though - I was just making an observation. Strange... why do people lose their temper while posting?

All I know is I just watched a video of a broomstick bury a predator. Did Bob cheat in the test? Maybe. Do I think he did - no. I believe Meucci sets this test up at Valley Forge - I wish I had paid more attention to the in-person test. Before you tell JR to "pipe down" (esp. when I'm not yelling) - maybe everyone should see for themselves?

The only reason I posted the original statement is a lot of people sh*t on Meucci, and they might actually have something here. That's ALL.

For what it's worth..... OB1, Predator, Meucci, Tiger, WHATEVER.... they don't help you make balls. You do that yourself. Every shaft deflects - and your mind subconsciously makes adjustments for that deflection the longer you play with it.

I was impressed with their videos. Where are the OB1, Predator and Tiger robot-arm videos?

Personally, I'll take Mike Lambros's shaft over anything - and you don't see him advertising.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I actually agree with what you're trying to say (removing variables such as the CB). Not sure if I like your "Jr." comment though - I was just making an observation. Strange... why do people lose their temper while posting?

All I know is I just watched a video of a broomstick bury a predator. Did Bob cheat in the test? Maybe. Do I think he did - no. I believe Meucci sets this test up at Valley Forge - I wish I had paid more attention to the in-person test. Before you tell JR to "pipe down" (esp. when I'm not yelling) - maybe everyone should see for themselves?

The only reason I posted the original statement is a lot of people sh*t on Meucci, and they might actually have something here. That's ALL.

For what it's worth..... OB1, Predator, Meucci, Tiger, WHATEVER.... they don't help you make balls. You do that yourself. Every shaft deflects - and your mind subconsciously makes adjustments for that deflection the longer you play with it.

I was impressed with their videos. Where are the OB1, Predator and Tiger robot-arm videos?
Click to expand...

I have their video in VHS format; they sent it to me a long time ago. It's the same as the one on their website.

However, I improved on their own results by modifying my 2 black-dot shafts. What I did was bore out the top 3 1/2 inches of the shaft, insert a balsa wood plug, and re-tip them, plus I retapered the shafts to be plenty thin for the top 12 inches or so, but left the actual tip size at 12.75 mm, the top four inches taper from about 11 mm up to 12.75. All that reduced the endmass of the cue substantially.

When I shoot that same test with these shafts now, it's incredible, but there is almost no discernible object ball deflection at the end rail. However, the feel of the shaft is much changed, and the hit isn't nice. Also, the power of the shafts was markedly diminished.

When I called the Meucci factory to tell them of my finds, they said I had "juiced" the shafts.

And I can do some pretty funky stuff with them, but they're not my players anymore.

Flex
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I actually agree with what you're trying to say (removing variables such as the CB). Not sure if I like your "Jr." comment though - I was just making an observation. Strange... why do people lose their temper while posting?

All I know is I just watched a video of a broomstick bury a predator. Did Bob cheat in the test? Maybe. Do I think he did - no. I believe Meucci sets this test up at Valley Forge - I wish I had paid more attention to the in-person test. Before you tell JR to "pipe down" (esp. when I'm not yelling) - maybe everyone should see for themselves?

The only reason I posted the original statement is a lot of people sh*t on Meucci, and they might actually have something here. That's ALL.

For what it's worth..... OB1, Predator, Meucci, Tiger, WHATEVER.... they don't help you make balls. You do that yourself. Every shaft deflects - and your mind subconsciously makes adjustments for that deflection the longer you play with it.

I was impressed with their videos. Where are the OB1, Predator and Tiger robot-arm videos?

Personally, I'll take Mike Lambros's shaft over anything - and you don't see him advertising.
Click to expand...

If you weren't upset you wouldn't have told me how they are constructed. Also you apparently didn't read through my whole post before you responded the first time.

If you agree with me then why would you say that you don't have to keep the dot on the top?

I am not saying their shafts aren't good shafts, hell they might be the best out there for all I know.

However they are not the most radial consistent. So in my opinion the OB-1 is a better shaft.

Now as far as calling you Jr I was just messing around trying to get you to see my point.

Yes there is no shaft on the market that will make you a better player.

However if there is a more consistent shaft, then that is the shaft I want.

Therefore I can say that Meucci doesn't hold a candle to OB-1 or Predator because their shaft isn't radial consistent.
 
Flex said:
I own two black dot shafts but rarely use them nowadays. Meucci's test with the robot is pretty straight forward. However, when you change tips, the results will change. Why? Because the amount of spin imparted to the cue ball when shot will vary depending on the tip. Some tips simply produce more spin than others, at least that has been my experience. For those tests to have real validity, IMHO, they would need to replace the tips on each of the shafts with say, a Moori medium, or some other quality tip, and shape each tip to the same radius, break it in properly, and then do the test. Now that would be an interesting test, for sure. Part of the problem with the way their test is rigged up is that we are looking at the result of cue ball squirt, plus whatever swerve might influence the cue ball's path, plus throw on the object ball. Lots of variables there, so to make it really fair, they should change all the tips, break them in, and perform the tests not only at one speed but at say, lag speed, 1.5 times lag speed, 2 times lag speed, and really firm, and warp or break speed.

Will they do all that?

Don't hold your breath.

Flex
Click to expand...

Yes they should do all that, plus they should rotate the cue 10 degrees and hit with it until they do a complete 360 degrees with the cue. This would also tell you what shaft is the most radial consistent.

I doubt that test will ever be done though!
 
Last edited:
txplshrk said:
Yes they should do all that, plus they should rotate the cue 10 degrees and hit will it until they do a complete 360 degrees with the cue. This would also tell you what shaft is the most radial consistent.

I doubt that test will ever be done though!
Click to expand...

Your suggestion is one I doubt they'd want to do...
 
txplshrk said:
However they are not the most radial consistent.

Yes there is no shaft on the market that will make you a better player.

However if there is a more consistent shaft, then that is the shaft I want.
Click to expand...
This is a peculiarly pool discussion:D

Snooker cues have a flat section on the butt. Therefore it is easy to always have the shaft oriented consistently from shot to shot.

Then you see pool players, Engert, for example, spinning the cue as he lines up a shot, and it raises the questions:

What shaft does he use?
Is it radially consistent?
 
I had one of the original bullseye shafts. I could put much more english(with little deflection) with it than with the first run predator shaft(viking butt) that a friend had. In fact, I was having trouble not "over-stroking" shots with english(including top and draw). These shafts made me a believer in whippy shafts, not that my mcdermott or red dot meucci sneaky didn't also play a part in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top