i got a hummer once, but it wasn't from a dude named Willie.
I really don't like doing this, but I'll try speak for the majority of posters in this thread and say, "we really don't want/need to know what his name was!".
My thoughts on conventional shaft vs. low deflection shaft
- Thread starter salam4
- Start date
I really don't like doing this, but I'll try speak for the majority of posters in this thread and say, "we really don't want/need to know what his name was!".
:bow-down: Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!
In order to become a top player, one has to have a great mental game...and confidence is a very big part of this. If the cue just doesn't feel good to a player, then it is not going to instill confidence, and that will quickly begin to erode one's mental game...which in turn will landslide one's physical game....and generally drive one completely bonkers...LoL!
Fred's absolutely right..."Performance" isn't just about pocketing balls. It's also about being able to keep your opponent from pocketing balls...I personally feel that it takes an even higher level of confidence to make a really great safety play than it may to pocket balls. Performance is also about being able to get terrific table position, shot after shot after shot.
All I know, that for me, is this...when I have a really great playing cue in my hands...one that 'talks' to me every single shot...I am having more fun than one ought to have standing upright! When I am having fun, I am continually building on that confidence, and when approaching the table, feel like there is nothing I can't accomplish...and generally, that translates into wins.
That works for me!!! :yeah:
Lisa ======> thinks that when you really KNOW your cue, you can use shaft deflection to your advantage. :idea:
Last edited:
Craig- i 100 % agree with your posting 
___________________________________
I tested so many shafts-almost un-countable- and there are really noticable differences which are makin some shafts really special.
BUT: IT S ALL ABOUT PRACTICE AND KNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR EQUIPMENT-AND FINALLY THAT YOU RE FEELING GOOD!!!
Happy new year for all,
Ingo
___________________________________
I tested so many shafts-almost un-countable- and there are really noticable differences which are makin some shafts really special.
BUT: IT S ALL ABOUT PRACTICE AND KNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR EQUIPMENT-AND FINALLY THAT YOU RE FEELING GOOD!!!
Happy new year for all,
Ingo
Last edited:
This is all well and good, but the arguments againnst LD shaft don't focus on sharpshooting accuracy, but rather with speed control and feel. World class players are already the most accurate regardless of what shaft they use.
I think most arguments for LD shafts fail to focus on the whole game, IMO.
Fred
Only at the lower levels. And of course, in a "shooting contest," their ranking would be dependent on how they pocket balls. LOL!!!
Surely you don't equate playing pool with just "pocketing balls." I would think players know this game a bit better.
Fred
IMO, arguments about feel aren't arguments against LD shafts, but against particular shafts, whether they're LD or HD. In other words, I don't think LD shafts all feel similar.
I haven't heard the argument about speed control - is it that speed control is reduced when the player doesn't like the feel of the shaft?
That's beside the point being made about LD shafts. The point is that they could be even more accurate, whether they need to be or not. It's a point about the shafts, not about the players.
I agree they don't, but I don't think they fail to. I don't think they need to, because LD doesn't affect all aspects of the game.
pj
chgo
Seriously? It's been the same argument since Predator came on the scene.
For the vast majority of players, speed control is absolutely a feel issue. Yes, there are those that can do analytical speed control, but that's a whole different study that the vast majority doesn't undertake.
The answer to the speed control issue is two-fold. One is simply from a feel standpoint. The other is from an accuracy of hit standpoint from slow english shots. The best illustration and description of what I'm talking about can be read in the current Z shaft discussion.
In a complete handwaving observation argument, it's easier for many to feel the blend of the shot if both squirt and swerve are involved. It seems very clear to me both from experience and from reading others' reports that it is more difficult to feel the blend of the shot when squirt is drastically reduced.
Fred
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.
My next question is what exactly does laminating a shaft have anything to do with it's deflection? Again, please explain.
What makes the definitive difference between a "low deflection" shaft and a "conventional" shaft? Please explain.
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?
I guess these are more less rhetorical questions & for fun i'm just looking to see what people think.
My next question is what exactly does laminating a shaft have anything to do with it's deflection? Again, please explain.
What makes the definitive difference between a "low deflection" shaft and a "conventional" shaft? Please explain.
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?
I guess these are more less rhetorical questions & for fun i'm just looking to see what people think.
6 years ago I switched to predator and I haven't gone back. This is not because I can't play with a conventional shaft or that I think one is better than the other. The reason I play with a predator is that I am not hooked on one cue only. If I lose my shaft or entire cue I can have a new one in 3 business days without missing a beat. My favorite is the 3/8-10 wood to wood joint 314-2 with any back weighted wrapless butt around 19 oz.
With a regular cue good luck finding the exact taper/diameter-->amount of deflection that you are used to. Unless you make your own cues or have them made to your personal specs you probably are s.o.l. if you lose your cue.
Dudley
With a regular cue good luck finding the exact taper/diameter-->amount of deflection that you are used to. Unless you make your own cues or have them made to your personal specs you probably are s.o.l. if you lose your cue.
Dudley
If one is a low-squirt ("low deflection") shaft and the other isn't, then the low-squirt shaft has something that reduces the weight (mass) of the material in the last 6 or so inches at the tip. Since you say the tip diameters are the same, then the low-squirt shaft is probably hollow (or cored with a lighter material) near the tip, and may also have a smaller or lighter ferrule. In other words, the low-squirt shaft is very likely to produce less squirt than the conventional shaft.
What do the terms "natural" and "responsive" mean?
Nothing. Manufacturers who laminate their shafts do it mostly because they can use lower grades and less "seasoned" wood. They try to make this into a marketing advantage by touting the "radial consistency" of laminated shafts, and this may be true to some degree but I don't think it makes a significant difference in the shaft's performance. It's really just a cost-cutting measure that can't be disguised so they've figured out how to market it as a "feature".
Lower endmass. I think the explanation is pretty obvious: less weight for the spinning surface of the CB to push aside.
Every shaft that doesn't have lower endmass. Many "conventional" shafts are now being made with smaller tip diameters, and this obviously reduces endmass, so some of them will compare with shafts designed for low squirt.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
The shaft that is like plywood would have the same mass though - how this enters the LD equation is interesting.
I hope that this helps.
Last edited:
I agree that a LD shaft probably wouldn't be heavier than a conventional shaft, but it isn't necessarily so. Only the mass in the first 6 or so inches at the tip figures into how much squirt the shaft produces, so the rest of the shaft could be heavier than a "conventional" shaft (because of denser maple or larger diameter, for instance), and could make the overall weight greater.
My shaft is very low squirt, with a hollow front end and a very small diameter tip (9-10mm), but weighs more overall than the 12.75mm Predator shaft I replaced because the straight conical taper grows faster than the Predator's pro taper.
pj
chgo
I completely understand the low tip end mass = lower deflection. What I was referring to with the conventional shaft and the laminated shaft was that there is no way to know because there is no way to accurately measure only part of the shaft, without cutting that section off & ruining the shaft. My point is that unless the difference between low deflection shafts and conventional shafts can be quantified by actual tests then it's a bogus argument. As far as I know, there are no mechanisms that offer unbiased testing of a shaft's deflective properties during play, and therefore no such thorough & unbiased tests have been executed. By thorough I mean testing hundreds of low deflection shafts and testing hundreds of conventional shafts, enough to give clear & unquestionable results. If such could be done, then we'd not be talking about it right now.
I completely agree that lamination has absolutely nothing to do with deflection. It's not even anything to mention except that it's a huge aspect of the marketing behind the low deflection shafts. I find that ironic. I think if the shafts actually had the awe inspiring accuracy that they are claimed to have, then there wouldn't have to be the huge reliance on baffling the public with so-called engineering accomplishments that increase the shaft's ability to pocket balls.
My concern is that people are painting such a bold line between conventional shafts and so-called low deflection shafts. Do I beleive they can hollow out the tip end to decrease deflection? Yes, I beleive you can decrease the deflection of any shaft by hollowing it out. Is is enough to make any difference? No, I don't beleive it is. The heavier the shaft, the more difference it will make. With a lightweight shaft it'll make very little difference as you are removing very little weight. Either way, the difference, IMO, is rediculously minute. Taper shape, diameter, ferrule material & ferrule install technique can have as much or more affect on deflection. It would be close minded to beleive every cuemaker worth an ounce of salt hasn't experimented with varying techniques of reducing deflection. A lot do it as a standard procedure with every shaft. If that shaft is solid maple & has a 1" ferrule, people would consider it "conventional" and think a "low deflection" laminated shaft would have less deflection, thus being a better shaft. The fact is, nobody knows if that's true or not because they haven't been thoroughly tested. That "conventional" shaft may very well have significantly less deflection than the laminated shaft. But nobody would beleive it without testing. That's my point.
Truth is, unless each shaft is tested individually, you have no idea what kind of deflective properties it has. It doesn't matter if it has a "conventional" look or if it's a super engineered laminated shaft. Either can be high deflection and either can be low deflection. Nobody knows. There are no definitive answers beyond understanding what deflection is & how it affects the game. We don't really know which shafts are low deflection & which are not. We only assume that the ones marketed as low deflection are actually low deflection because it's what we are told. And it's been that way for so long that now we assume a shaft that isn't laminated with a funky or short ferrule is going to be high deflection, and that's alarmingly wrong.
I completely agree that lamination has absolutely nothing to do with deflection. It's not even anything to mention except that it's a huge aspect of the marketing behind the low deflection shafts. I find that ironic. I think if the shafts actually had the awe inspiring accuracy that they are claimed to have, then there wouldn't have to be the huge reliance on baffling the public with so-called engineering accomplishments that increase the shaft's ability to pocket balls.
My concern is that people are painting such a bold line between conventional shafts and so-called low deflection shafts. Do I beleive they can hollow out the tip end to decrease deflection? Yes, I beleive you can decrease the deflection of any shaft by hollowing it out. Is is enough to make any difference? No, I don't beleive it is. The heavier the shaft, the more difference it will make. With a lightweight shaft it'll make very little difference as you are removing very little weight. Either way, the difference, IMO, is rediculously minute. Taper shape, diameter, ferrule material & ferrule install technique can have as much or more affect on deflection. It would be close minded to beleive every cuemaker worth an ounce of salt hasn't experimented with varying techniques of reducing deflection. A lot do it as a standard procedure with every shaft. If that shaft is solid maple & has a 1" ferrule, people would consider it "conventional" and think a "low deflection" laminated shaft would have less deflection, thus being a better shaft. The fact is, nobody knows if that's true or not because they haven't been thoroughly tested. That "conventional" shaft may very well have significantly less deflection than the laminated shaft. But nobody would beleive it without testing. That's my point.
Truth is, unless each shaft is tested individually, you have no idea what kind of deflective properties it has. It doesn't matter if it has a "conventional" look or if it's a super engineered laminated shaft. Either can be high deflection and either can be low deflection. Nobody knows. There are no definitive answers beyond understanding what deflection is & how it affects the game. We don't really know which shafts are low deflection & which are not. We only assume that the ones marketed as low deflection are actually low deflection because it's what we are told. And it's been that way for so long that now we assume a shaft that isn't laminated with a funky or short ferrule is going to be high deflection, and that's alarmingly wrong.
Muecci tested various shafts agaist their black dot shaft with a machine. They had better LD with it than the 314. Here is a link that will show that there is a difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCHk...A38BA57AD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCHk...A38BA57AD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3
Agreed,
Not all low deflection shafts are the engineered type. Some shafts are tapered by a cuemaker to have little deflection.
Some poolplayers can only play well with a cue that has deflection. It is whatever you prefer as a player from your personal experience.
Good Point.
Dudley
Last edited:
Thanks pj,
I concur that there is more to the weight than just to first 6 inches.
The Meucci black dot shaft is like plywood and though I dont know what the relative mass is, I think that it is more "bendable" with the black dot up and achieves LD. Is this (ease of bending away from the cue ball) a component of LD as well as low mass?
I didn't buy one for I think that the tip would wear unenvenly.
Thanks
Now you don't suppose old Bob would have biased that test in any way, do you? Naw.
That is with a machine like you said, however, that machine can only hit the cue ball one way, and no human can produce the same results as a machine as far as hitting the cue ball is concerned. Many factors will influence how we as players follow through on a shot, but the machine can repeat the exact same movement every time. So the results of any type of test using a machine verses a human really isn't valid.
But, I am not saying that there can be benefits from either type of shaft, but I agree with cuemaker that the testing used to date has not been extensive enough to make a clear statement one way or the other.
JIMHO
Here's a helpful hint from the old Steamer. Google Wikipedia, enter the word 'deflection' and click on it. Select the type of 'deflection', which would be engineering and see what it says.
The upshot is that 'deflection' is another word for the bending of a structure (our cue shafts) when placed under a load (the load being the cue ball when struck).
If less 'deflection' of the structure (our cue shafts) is desireable then how do we we construct them without adding mass? Simple, laminate them. Either in a radial fashion as with the pie pieces, or laterally by stacking them flat. Less mass, but still structurally sound.
Do you remember when you were a kid and you wanted to put a little extra jizz on the cue ball? You grabbed a snooker cue of the wall. And do you remember that oftimes you have to roll a couple of them to find a straight one. There's nothing new under the sun.
The upshot is that 'deflection' is another word for the bending of a structure (our cue shafts) when placed under a load (the load being the cue ball when struck).
If less 'deflection' of the structure (our cue shafts) is desireable then how do we we construct them without adding mass? Simple, laminate them. Either in a radial fashion as with the pie pieces, or laterally by stacking them flat. Less mass, but still structurally sound.
Do you remember when you were a kid and you wanted to put a little extra jizz on the cue ball? You grabbed a snooker cue of the wall. And do you remember that oftimes you have to roll a couple of them to find a straight one. There's nothing new under the sun.