My theory on Deflection

There is always a trade off

Some shots are easier with LD shafts & some are easier with Std shafts. By that I mean aim compensation or no compensation. In either case the player has a choice of what shaft & tip works best for his style of play. The game played & variety of shots are a factor as well. No shaft offers the best of both worlds.

Its up to the player to know their strong & weak points with that shaft. When you know that, some shots you avoid with a safer option. Or when you're sure go for it.

That's my opinion ~~ usually I know when to pass
 
I disagree. I think that even if a carefully engineered cue were made to fit the criteria I mentioned (and this is totally possible to design), the inertia inherent in that mass at the end of would increase the deflection because it would have more momentum acting on the CB at contact. I think it's really a combination of both things, reduction of actual end mass and reduction of stiffness that contribute to the final effective end mass.

I'm curious to see if Dave agrees with this, though.

If I am reading you right, you are saying that a metal rod attached to a cue at the end with a section right after it being hollowed out to make that part LD would make the metal ended shaft deflect away from the cb and the cb would squirt less. Am I correct in what you are saying?

(Dr. Dave already chimed in)
 
Supposedly only the last 5 inches of the shaft matter. If you sawed the end off an OB,
stuck it on an 18 oz metal rod, you'd have a working LD cue. A very ugly one.

Wow, bet that puppy'd hit a ton, though. :)

This past couple weeks of being glued to the TV watching the Olympics (oops, I just admitted there's more to life than pool) got me pretty disillusioned. Pros playing hockey (and losing anyway), athletes switch citizenships, back door judging conspiracies, etc. What can you do? But using equipment improvements to beat your opponent....? Where will it all end?

Those super speedos sure do bend the rules if fair play IMO, but every technological advance, no matter how small, is taking one step further away from the soul of sport. I'm guilty myself.

I used to be a bamboo fly rod purist. Nothing casts as sweet as cane, or brings a monster trout to net better. So what's in my gear locker now? 27 graphite wonders and one collectors grade masterpiece cane rod worth so much I can never dare fish it. Years ago when bamboo was on its way out and graphite was taking over, I sold all my wonderful fishing tools and bought into the graphite craze. Why? The hearty promise of superior performance.

We're they wrong? Well, no. I mean yes. OK... Both.

Yes, the average guy can cast a line farther with a graphite rod than he can with a cane rod. So, he can theoretically reach those fish that the sucker still fishing wood can't get close to. He can also punch into a head wind a lot more effective because he can develop greater line speed. The rod reacts faster to an impulse from the fisherman's hand, so he can set the hook faster. It stays straight with virtually no care, hot or cold or rode hard and put away wet. It's lighter in the hand, so you can fish longer without fatigue setting in. I can teach a guy the simple casting style needed for a graphite rod in a morning, where he may struggle for years to get all he can out of bamboo. Besides all that, it's very exotic and expensive. Fly fishermen love exotic and expensive. So do dealers.

So, what's the beef?

Well, to start out, I ain't no ordinary caster, I'm up there in the top 5%. Near elite. I can cast cane a country mile. I can literally paint shape on the water with bamboo, whille I have a much harder time adjusting my floating line with graphite. I can use the most delicate flick of my wrist to gently but firmly set the hook, while with graphite I have to be extremely careful that I don't pull the fly away too soon, or break of the hair-like leader tippet with the quick acting graphite.

When I finally have the fish on, I can feel every pulse of a trout's fight through the delicate tip of a fine cane rod, every direction change, every head shake, and the slower springiness of the material allows me to put constant pressure on the fish, bringing him to net sooner for safe release.

The casting loops are a feast for the eyes, and anyone who has never cast cane will never learn how to cast this way. Huge, magnificent loops that float through the air in a way that belies their true power, for they do go far, and they do cut through the wind, and they do go straight when you want them to, or curve so sumptuously when that's what you desire.

Thousands of dollars and decades of use of graphite taught me there are only two ways that graphite trumps cane:

1) They are lighter in the hand and you can cast them for more hours.

2) No one cries when one gets broken.

Of course, they are sure marketable, what with all those charts citing fancy engineering terms like "scrim", "hoop strength", "modulus of elasticity", etc. Customers love to hear that shit. I remember at one shop I guided out of listening to the owner promise that if he bought this particular S___ rod he'd "be able to cast the whole 90' line and 10' of the backing" (a bald-face lie, he and I could, the customer didn't have a prayer). Then half an hour later during one of our casting clinics he proclaimed "you can catch any fish on the West Branch with a 20' cast". Which was basically true. "So why do you need to be able to cast the remaining 80'?", I thought. Of course, I said nothing. I got 10% on everything he sold my clients. ;)

There is only one real reason why cane died off and modern composite rods took off. Tonkin cane became commercially unavailable because every blessed culm of it came from Communist China and there was a strict embargo against its import. Eventually it became available again, but by that time the hook was set, but this time it was firmly in the jaw of the consumer. With all the hype about the wonderful virtues of high-modulus computer designed carbon fiber rods, the public was, quite frankly, afraid to be seen in public with anything else.

So, read betweens the lines here and you will see where I'm coming from regarding pool cues. At least there still tons of guys using classic cues these days, and loving the hell out of them. With cane, it's me an' a couple old cranks out there, still nostalgic about the magic of a beam of sunlight pouring onto the golden hexagonal surface of a classic cane masterpiece, with a unique taper formula taken to the grave of the master craftsman who fashioned it, and a 20" trout putting a bend in it you'd swear would snap it in two in a heartbeat. Only it never does.
 
If I am reading you right, you are saying that a metal rod attached to a cue at the end with a section right after it being hollowed out to make that part LD would make the metal ended shaft deflect away from the cb and the cb would squirt less. Am I correct in what you are saying?

(Dr. Dave already chimed in)

No, not at all. I'm saying it would squirt more.
 
I hope I don't misrepresent his thinking, but Bob Meucci is a believer in the butt having an effect on cue-ball squirt.

Bob came to this position rather accidentally. One of the cues he built for his 97 Series (model 97-21) was constructed with a combination of plastics and wood (that is more flexible than an all-hardwood butt) for reasons having nothing to do with squirt. But when he tested the cue for squirt, he discovered that the construction had a beneficial effect. That led Bob to develop a whole bunch of cues constructed similarly, and he dubbed it his "Power Piston technology."

Yes, I fully realize that this is inconsistent with the science that says that nothing about the butt can affect squirt because the CB is gone from the tip before the transverse shock wave reaches the butt.

Careful, they burn witches at the stake around here. ;)
 
Careful, they burn witches at the stake around here. ;)

We's 'a sharpening our pitchforks and lightin' our torches as I speak. ;)

Have to read up on what old Bob found out. Wasn't there some controversy surrounding his test methodology? Something about the machine he built? I'm probably wrong about that.

Everything I know about squirt reduction I learned from Dr. Dave's website. If he turns out to be wrong, I'm taking the fifth.
 
There's two trains of thought when playing rotation games.

"Low Deflection" shafts are fine, but they still deflect slightly. I'm of the opinion that it's better to TRY to throw the shots and make the deflection process "your best friend," rather than some "evil enemy."

There's two trains of thought when playing rotation games. One is to let the table dictate what shot you hit. That would mean you look at the shot and it tells you what speed, what spin, and what angle (is the best to get on your next shot).

The other way is what I suggest. Develop a shot that enables you to maximize the pocket size. This means you line up to undercut the shot slightly (aim in the pocket, but on the "undercut side") and deflect it to over-cut slightly.

My preference is to deflect the ball slightly with a "Touch" of Inside because I can get a more consistent result by adjusting my speed, rather than my "aim". Then I can start playing a consistent angle as well. This means I'm controlling the angle, the speed, and the spin according to your preference, not because the "table makes me hit a low percentage {spinning} shot."

Sounds backwards, however, think about it, how well could you play if you hit the same speed, {same}place on the cue ball, and {same} angle every time?

If I undercut a shot I hit it firmer and accelerate more next time. If I miss the same shot hitting a "slow spin shot," I don't get the feedback to know what happened, it could be a variety of factors. There's more calculations, so therefore more variables to deal with.

If I make an adjustment that's incorrect it could throw you off temporarily enough to lose a whole match or gambling set. The amount of money involved in matches I've played prohibited this type of guessing. I had to know for sure so I could make a specific adjustment!

When we spin the ball or try to hit center and miss there's a lot more variables and it's difficult to know and adjust for errant shots. This effects our ability to maximize "margin of error"
through the use of "Pocket Zones". To create a pocket zone you must learn to favor one side of the pocket and effectively force it into the center or other side of the pocket.

To see free videos demonstrating these techniques visit my web site at www.cjwiley.com
 
Well, I don't think it matters especially if aiming is rigid and mechanical, or a touchy feely process.
The bottom line is, after a few years, you figure out how to hit point A, when you aim at point A.

What the LD shaft does is, if you accidentally put a half tip of left on the ball,
it will arrive closer to the intended point than if you'd used a standard shaft.

You also mentioned perception. To me that's the main advantage to LD shafts -
perception. With a high deflection shaft, I might need to aim an inch or more away
from where I intend the cue ball to make contact. It's tough to fine tune your aim,
when your initial guess for aim is some imaginary area
way to the left or right of the contact point.

I dunno about anyone else but my brain HATES aiming at the left side of the ball,
if I intend to hit the right side of it (which comes up in cases of extreme deflection).




Well, that's the big question... "if it is true".
LZR's advantage is easy to prove on paper.
Within weeks of it being released, multiple world records were broken.

LD shafts have had nowhere near the same impact. Nobody ran over 526 with one.
If you honestly think they're that much better then I dunno why we're arguing,
because I already believe they're better too :)

In which case your complaint is... that I have to own the shaft just to be competitive?
Meh, 200 bucks. Tiger's golf clubs cost 10x that. And probably you need 2 million to
do NASCAR (just a random guess don't hold me to it).

Pool players get off easy.




The argument for LD shafts (one of them) is that they minimize the impact of stroke errors.
Like accidentally adding a half tip of left may not ruin the shot on an LD shaft.
If LD improves potting odds for a pro, then the advantage is even larger for an amateur
who needs all the help they can get with potting.


Supposedly only the last 5 inches of the shaft matter. If you sawed the end off an OB,
stuck it on an 18 oz metal rod, you'd have a working LD cue. A very ugly one.




LD shafts provide fine tuning of aim/stroke, vs HD shafts. For the B & C players it is hard for them to know why they miss, true LD will help, but they will still be in consistent and start doubting themselves; An A or A+ player and higher, already reached a level where his / her stroke, and aim are in sync adding LD will reduce a bit of the guess work when correcting the aim (without stun)
 
I know a very good player here in New Orleans who swears there is no such thing as cue ball deflection. He uses a traditional maple shaft and says he is not compensating for any cue ball squirt when he uses sidespin. :withstupid:

JoeyA
LoL! Well; if he's a very good player and has a stupid conscious mind, that only means one thing: he must have a fairly smart subconcious mind. Otherwise, there's no way he could be a very good player. It's probably a case where he believes it's all swerve and throw. For example; on a cut shot to the left his conscious mind is telling him when he uses outside english he's aiming to the left of the tangent line, he's swerving the ball to the right, the 2 balls make contact slightly to the left of the tangent line, then spin induced throw cause the balls to separate only when the tangent line is pointing towards the pocket
His subconscious mind knows he's aiming to the right of the tangent line, he's deflecting to the left, he's hitting too hard for swerve to occur, and throw has little to no effect on the shot......I know all this 'cause I'm a self- taught basement player who for a long time read very little about pool and couldn't quite grasp the concept of deflection on those few occasions when I did read about it.
 
In my opinion, I agree :) I actually still have the same shaft I started playing with, it is time for a new one, but not because of some want for magic.
 
Ah, tonight was my first night with an LD shaft ever! It plays pretty much the same except on a few finesse shots where I had to spin the ball extremely to play safe, I ended up missing the whole ball twice, and long cut shots that experience has taught me to compensate for also missed the ball completely. So all in all a great experience for me and there isn't much to compensate for other than those pesky long thin ones. The learning curve was quite short and am looking forward to using my new OB more.
 
LoL! Well; if he's a very good player and has a stupid conscious mind, that only means one thing: he must have a fairly smart subconcious mind. Otherwise, there's no way he could be a very good player. It's probably a case where he believes it's all swerve and throw. For example; on a cut shot to the left his conscious mind is telling him when he uses outside english he's aiming to the left of the tangent line, he's swerving the ball to the right, the 2 balls make contact slightly to the left of the tangent line, then spin induced throw cause the balls to separate only when the tangent line is pointing towards the pocket
His subconscious mind knows he's aiming to the right of the tangent line, he's deflecting to the left, he's hitting too hard for swerve to occur, and throw has little to no effect on the shot......I know all this 'cause I'm a self- taught basement player who for a long time read very little about pool and couldn't quite grasp the concept of deflection on those few occasions when I did read about it.

It is possible his height is such that his normal stance is elevating cue perfectly to cancel squirt, most likely tall person!
 
It is possible his height is such that his normal stance is elevating cue perfectly to cancel squirt, most likely tall person!

Swerve can't just conveniently cancel out CB squirt. It depends on pace, distance, cloth type and condition, etc. Squirt is a constant that can be directly compensated for, swerve is a variable that must be considered for each shot.
 
Swerve can't just conveniently cancel out CB squirt. It depends on pace, distance, cloth type and condition, etc. Squirt is a constant that can be directly compensated for, swerve is a variable that must be considered for each shot.
Probably your best post ever!

Good job,
Dave
 
Seriously, Dave, I think a lot of folks who haven't given it much thought haven't yet come to realize that CB squirt occurs at the instant of contact. It's an angular deflection of the CB path from the force vector of the moving cue. Maybe that's not perfect engineer speak, but the point I'm trying to make is that there it is a physical phenomenon that there is no getting around. You either compensate with it through aim - intentionally or not - or you build a CB striking device that eliminates some of it.
 
Seriously, Dave, I think a lot of folks who haven't given it much thought haven't yet come to realize that CB squirt occurs at the instant of contact. It's an angular deflection of the CB path from the force vector of the moving cue. Maybe that's not perfect engineer speak, but the point I'm trying to make is that there it is a physical phenomenon that there is no getting around. You either compensate with it through aim - intentionally or not - or you build a CB striking device that eliminates some of it.
There are many "physical phenomenon" and effects that come into play when using sidespin. In fact, there are about 37 of them. If one does not have knowledge, understanding, and/or an intuitive feel for these effects (whether they know they do or not), one will not be a top player.

For those interested, the 37 effects are listed, illustrated, and demonstrated on the squirt, swerve, and throw effects resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave
 
Back
Top