Let me take a crack at this:
I have a couple questions for anybody inclined to contemplate the thought. Take two shafts, one is a 4.0oz low deflection laminated shaft with typical 12" pro-taper. The other is a "conventional' maple shaft weighing a typically natural 3.4oz with a 3/8" tenon & capless melamine ferrule, cut to the same very normal 12" pro-taper. Both are 12.75mm. Which will have the lowest deflection? Which will have the most natural & responsive feel? And please explain why.
You have not provided enough information here. The main factor in determining the amount of cue ball squirt *seems* to be the endmass of the tip and ferrule. A capless melamine ferrule most likely weighs less than a capped one. Lets assume identical tips (shape and type). You mention that one shaft is "low deflection". You need to be more specific. Predator makes a variety of low deflection shafts, as does OB, as do many custom makers. Are these shafts "low deflection" because that is what someone decided to call them, or because they have lower deflection? If the latter, then you already have the answer to the question. 4 oz. is a fairly heavy shaft. However, if the end of the shaft is hollow like a Predator, then it is very likely that this one will deflect less. I have tried some standard maple shafts that have had relatively low deflection, though there is HUGE variability from shaft to shaft. The answer to this part is there is no answer based on the info given.
My next question is what exactly does laminating a shaft have anything to do with it's deflection? Again, please explain.
This one is easier. The point of *radial* lamination is to make the shaft perform the same no matter how you rotate it. There are shafts that are flat laminated (like Meucci black dot). This means if you looked at a cross section of the shaft, you would see a stack of wood strips. These would flex very differently if you rotate them 90 degrees. Predator is radially laminated, meaning a cross section would look like an evenly sliced pie. This lamination is not intended to minimize deflection, but rather to make the shaft consistent no matter how it is rotated in your grip.
What makes the definitive difference between a "low deflection" shaft and a "conventional" shaft? Please explain.
As mentioned above, it could be that a manufacturer decided to name their product that. Hopefully, the difference is that the shaft produces less cue ball squirt than a typical conventional shaft. This will likely mean that the mass of the last 5" or so of the shaft is less than normal. This means the when you strike the side of the cueball, the shaft will be more likely to "deflect" out of the way of the cueball, rather than making the cue ball get out of *it's* way. So really, a shaft that offers less cueball squirt most likely offers MORE deflection (meaning it is more likely to bend and move out of the way of the cueball).
My last question is, when the marketing of these "low deflection" shaft manufacturers make claims of higher accuracy and lower deflection than "conventional" shafts, exactly whose conventional shafts are they referring to?
They are typically referring to the average standard maple shaft. As stated above, there is quite a lot of variability in standard shafts. However, on the whole, shafts marketed as Low Deflection (which should really be called low cue ball squirt) have less cue ball squirt (often called deflection).
I think there is little question that low deflection shafts do what they are intended to do. That is easily proven. The question is whether it is desirable to aspire to that goal for a shaft. I personally feel that all other things being equal, less "deflection" is a good thing. It certainly simplifies the aiming process, and offers the incorporation of many shots into a players arsenal that they just would never get to normally, because it would take so long to learn to do reliably with a regular shaft. Obviously many people have put in the time and shoot amazing shots with conventional shafts. However, the fact that someone can do it does not mean that it isn't taking the hard route to get there.
As for feel, I think any good player will tell you that this is huge. When a cue feels good and "has a good hit" (or one that appeals to a particular shooter), that player will likely experience better speed control, a better feel for exactly what the cueball is doing, a better ability to control the spin of the cueball, etc. The fact is that for people concerned about the hit of the cue, I think you will find more people that like the hit of a standard maple shaft. This is likely because the end of the shaft is *not* hollow. This makes for a more solid, positive feel to the hit, with what I believe is more feedback. Don't get me wrong. I have shot with a Predator 314 for about 5 years now. (Now a 314-2). I love the overall performance, and find that when the joint is installed by a good cue maker, the feel and hit can be quite enjoyable and useful. I have a brand new Andy Gilbert cue. I got an Andy Gilbert shaft, and a Predator 314-2 prepared by him (he installed the joint). I must say that the feel of the hit is surprisingly close. I might say the the standard shaft has an ever so slightly superior feeling hit, but i think this is fairly minimal. I have certainly experienced far more significant differences in the past with other standard/Predator comparisons I've made. However, the performance of the Predator (which the original poster highlighted) is definitely superior for my game. I'm sure if I had a few years, maybe 5 hours a day or so to kill, I could probably become as proficient with the standard shaft when using inside english, or really any english...I just don't have that kind of time. I would rather spend my pool playing learning time getting better at patterns, speed control, etc. I definitely thing shafts like the Predator offer a shortcut to a more advanced game. Heck, I need it; I'll take it!
KMRUNOUT
