My thoughts on conventional shaft vs. low deflection shaft

[Nick B]

The same thing would apply to a Medium---to Medium Soft tip. Pred's & OBs do not jump well. I would suggest using your Break Cue or better yet Jump cue.

Shawn,
Simply Question:
If you and I played say 3 sets of 10ball to 9. How many times would you need to hit a shot with Inside (LD's obvious strength) vs Jump the ball (Non-LD strength)?

LD shafts do the following:
1. Allow for less squirt.
2. Provide more linear response to squirt
3. Allows for greater consistency between shafts. I agree no two are the same but they are closer.
4. Allows shaft/cue makers to produce better results out of inferior base product.

If you can do everything you want with one cue...more power to you. You can also have all the ugly girls in the room as well.

JUMP SHOT. Let's see you shoot it with a low deflection shaft. I can make EVERY shot with my one-piece, low tech shaft with hard ferrules that I can with the hollow, wooden or plastic ferruled shafts. Anyone who has tried a jump shot with their playing cue with an LD shaft knows they jump like a turd. There is the odd shot where I have to hop over a little piece of the blocking ball, but do not feel the need to bring out the jump cue, as I'm much more accurate with my playing cue.

PJ, tell me how your ultra low deflection shaft jumps balls.......let me guess, one of your standard shots as well, right?

 

[Maniac]

Thinking about acquiring a 60" cue. Questions.

Ooops. I was trying to start a new thread and hit the wrong button.

Maniac

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Shawn:
PJ, tell me how your ultra low deflection shaft jumps balls.......let me guess, one of your standard shots as well, right?

No, it jumps like a white guy, as I've said many times. I've gotten to the point where I can make easy jumps with it, but if I need to make a harder one I use a house cue or my jump stick.

Do you think that means you need squirt to swerve around a ball?

pj
chgo

 

[enzo]

Patrick,

No, I don't have any testing. I am pretty much biased to our cue shafts based on what our customers say.

There is one common theme when players hit our cue shafts for the first time. They all comment about how easy it is to spin the cue ball. I don't think it spins it more, just easier or more spin with less speed.

Sorry, I usually qualify that statement with "according to our customers comments" or something like that.

Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com

i hit with one of these only recently, and was beyond impressed. if players are saying that about spin, it is definitely a compliment. my impression was that your shafts seem to have the deflection properties of a 314, yet with a better, "softer" feel. really, really a nice hit you've come up with there.

regards!

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

The same thing would apply to a Medium---to Medium Soft tip. Pred's & OBs do not jump well. I would suggest using your Break Cue or better yet Jump cue.

Shawn,
Simply Question:
If you and I played say 3 sets of 10ball to 9. How many times would you need to hit a shot with Inside (LD's obvious strength) vs Jump the ball (Non-LD strength)?

LD shafts do the following:
1. Allow for less squirt.
2. Provide more linear response to squirt
3. Allows for greater consistency between shafts. I agree no two are the same but they are closer.
4. Allows shaft/cue makers to produce better results out of inferior base product.

If you can do everything you want with one cue...more power to you. You can also have all the ugly girls in the room as well.

Herein lies my point. A standard shaft can produce inside english. Everyone who uses an LD shaft thinks that they make english easier - THEY DO NOT. They REDUCE the amount you need to compensate, but I have yet to find the ZERO DEFLECTION shaft. If it's merely a reduction, then I just have to compensate a little more when I use english.

However, there are a bunch of shots I can show you where it is advantageous to have a cue that can jump the ball slightly. Grady did an entire section on them in one of his vids. If the LD shaft robs me of those shots, I'll stick with the low tech shaft, thanks.

Some people's egos are intertwined with their pool playing abilities. I have no delusions of thinking I play better than I do. And, a 10 piece shaft with a hole in it, or some other technologically advanced adamantium grafted pool cue shaft isn't going to make me a better player. Practice will. Table time will. Too many players are looking for the magic pill - new shaft, new tip, new break cue, new video. Geno's posts have proved this hands down.

If I had seen a quantum leap in pool playing abilities over the past decade, I'd say you're onto something. But, there are still guys out there winning titles with one piece shafts. There are guys winning titles with soft breaks. There are guys out there winning titles without jump cues. We're hitting plastic balls with wooden sticks. If you think the gimmick shaft makes you play better, then it does. I play just fine with a normal shaft. I've tried OBs, Predators, etc, etc. I prefer to have a shaft that isn't 30% glue, air and foam.

 

[Dudley]

You get slightly hooked behind a ball & the object ball is too close to the pocket to jump at safely. You use a tremendous amount of inside spin and intentionally squirt away from the ball that's blocking you & the cueball will swerve back on track to contact your intended target ball. I'd like to see somebody do that with a low deflection shaft. Obviously, deflection is a key element in making the shot possible. It's also not an uncommon shot.

I know the shot you are talking about. This is a very specific shot that can only be done with a cue with deflection. It is very hard to portray a shot in a way that people would understand with a written description. Predator cannot produce this result in the same way. You could shoot a curve shot by jacking up with a predator but not with a level cue like you can with a standard shaft with deflection because the ball wouldn't squirt away from the ball you are trying to curve around.

I play with predator and can't do the shot he is describing.

Dudley

 

[qbilder]

Why do you think you can't simply aim a little to the side to get around the blocking ball?

It really surprises me that anybody thinks squirt is necessary for this shot. I do it all the time with my ultra-low squirt shaft. It's a standard shot with any shaft.

pj
chgo

The entire thread has been claims that there's no need to compensate for sidespin because with your low deflection shafts you can aim straight with side spin and the cueball travels straight to the aimed position. So exactly how is it you are executing this shot? Royce said he can aim away from the line of intended travel with extreme sidespin & the cueball will curve back on track. Is that your philosophy as well?

I'm seeing a full circle argument here. Either your "ultra-low squirt" shafts greatly reduce or eliminate compensation for spin or they don't. Which is it? It can't be both. You say in one post that you don't have to compensate for spin, then you claim a shot like this can be made with the same no compensation shafts. So what side of the fence are you on?

I won't go into the mechanics of it all just yet but i'm getting the distinct impression you are not thoroughly understanding the physics behind this shot. I'd like to think that is the case. The way I see it, either this shot cannot be made with a low deflection, no compensation shaft, or else in fact it can be and therefore negates the entire argument that there's no need for compensation when using a low deflection shaft.

Clearly, ether the cue ball curves along the travel path when utilizing spin, or it doesn't. You & the low deflection fans have claimed that it doesn't, that it travels straight along your path of aim regardless of spin. But now you are claiming this shot can be made. This shot requires cue ball curve regardless of shaft used. I can explain exactly, utilizing basic physics, how the cueball incurrs travel path change due to spin, if you'd like me to. But it is in clear contrast to what you & others claim low deflection shafts bennefits players.

The shot was mentioned to stick the low deflection guys in a position of having to either admit their shafts cannot perform every shot, even some basic shots, or else they can & therefore are sharply contrasting the entire lobbied benneficial idea they support. I am 110% in support of the research, development & advancing of cues. It's what I do. But i'm not so simple minded that i'll bite off on any theory that comes about & tout it as gospel. There's more to it than any of us understand yet & it's not simply dispelled as "tip end mass". Any time you want to converse about how a cue plays & why, i'm more than abliged to participate. But what i'm not agreeing to is the general populus of players being led to beleive there are bennefits available to them simply by buying a new shaft. Marketing is one thing & everybody is on their own figuring that stuff out. But online conversation forums are altogether different & a good debate here should include all angles of view and have solid scientific proof to back up the ideas. In this case, all I have heard is "tip end mass". That theory doesn't even apply to the shot at hand when utilizing a shaft that claims no compensation neccesary. So again, which is it? Do low deflection shafts eliminate or even greatly decrease spin compensation, or do they not?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The entire thread has been claims that there's no need to compensate for sidespin because with your low deflection shafts you can aim straight with side spin and the cueball travels straight to the aimed position.

Low squirt shafts reduce squirt, not eliminate it. That's why they're called low squirt and not no squirt.

So exactly how is it you are executing this shot? Royce said he can aim away from the line of intended travel with extreme sidespin & the cueball will curve back on track. Is that your philosophy as well?

Yes, as I've said more than once. But it's not a philosophy; it's a well known fact that has been described by many respected pool experts, including Robert Byrne.

I'm seeing a full circle argument here. Either your "ultra-low squirt" shafts greatly reduce or eliminate compensation for spin or they don't. Which is it? It can't be both. You say in one post that you don't have to compensate for spin, then you claim a shot like this can be made with the same no compensation shafts. So what side of the fence are you on?

First of all, no shaft eliminates squirt; they just reduce it. Secondly, reducing squirt doesn't mean you can't make masse shots, either "large masse" where you jack way up or "small masse" where you shoot almost level. There's no fence - both are true.

I won't go into the mechanics of it all just yet but i'm getting the distinct impression you are not thoroughly understanding the physics behind this shot.

I'm quite sure you don't, and I'm pretty sure they're much simpler than you think. Getting the CB around the OB for this "small masse" shot is as simple as aiming it that way.

The way I see it, either this shot cannot be made with a low deflection, no compensation shaft, or else in fact it can be and therefore negates the entire argument that there's no need for compensation when using a low deflection shaft.

As I said above, both are true - the shot works fine with any shaft. You don't need more squirt to make it; you don't need any squirt to make it. I'm surprised you think so.

Clearly, ether the cue ball curves along the travel path when utilizing spin, or it doesn't. You & the low deflection fans have claimed that it doesn't, that it travels straight along your path of aim regardless of spin.

This is your misunderstanding; nobody has said that. In fact, squirt is not what makes the CB curve with spin - swerve ("little masse") does that. Swerve happens with sidespin, just as squirt happens with sidespin, but they're not the same thing. Maybe this is what you don't understand.

The shot was mentioned to stick the low deflection guys in a position of having to either admit their shafts cannot perform every shot, even some basic shots, or else they can & therefore are sharply contrasting the entire lobbied benneficial idea they support.

Well, that didn't work, but look at the bright side. At least you've stuck yourself in a position to learn something.

pj
chgo

 

[Wolven]

Sverve and squirt Dr. Dave has a lot on this.
Example: http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2008/april08.pdf

Once again PJ is right, there is squirt with LD but less and aiming is easier.

Qbilder - the shot we discussed can be can done even on shorter distance within reason, done it again.
Aiming is different than with normal shaft as there is less squirt but sverve will take over.
Must shoot soft on this and a slight swipe/swoop across CB can help too.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...a slight swipe/swoop across CB can help too.

This isn't a good idea. You don't need it, and it reduces accuracy.

pj
chgo

 

[qbilder]

reducing squirt doesn't mean you can't make masse shots, either "large masse" where you jack way up or "small masse" where you shoot almost level.

Need I even go any further? You are debating something entirely different.

A masse by it's very nature is the ball being deflected in one direction while spinning in the opposite direction. The friction of the spin against the plane it's travelling is what reverses the direction of travel. The cue tip theoretically assumes greater mass due to the pinching energy of the cueball against the table. The spherical cueball "squirts" away due to it being more movable than the tip of the cue. Is that a satisfactory explanation of a masse for you? Well, while it does in part explain tip end mass = deflection, it has nothing to do with the shot I described.

The shot I described has a level cue & insistantly is not anything remotely similar to a masse. The defection angle of the cueball combined with the notion to continue forward is what forces the side spin of the ball to tilt on it's axis, thereby altering the spin direction of the ball & as such alters the path of travel the ball will follow. It is not masse, it's deflective swerve. The cue does not need to be jacked up any amount. The major differing tale is that the ball with my deflection shot is directed with forward spin & the masse has is directed with reverse spin. It's night & day difference. Regardless of the spin the ball has as it contacts the object ball, it's the directional force spin that i'm trying to point out is the difference.

Masse & swerve are not the same thing. Swerve is the curve movement the ball makes as it travels. Masse induces swerve due to reverse spin. My shot induces swerve due to forward spin. In fact, players even call it the "squirt" shot. Does this make any sense or am I spinning my wheels trying to explain it? Really, I cannot break it down to any simpler level wthout being on table & showing you, which i'll glady do if/when we ever meet.

 

[qbilder]

Sverve and squirt Dr. Dave has a lot on this.
Example: http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2008/april08.pdf

Once again PJ is right, there is squirt with LD but less and aiming is easier.

Qbilder - the shot we discussed can be can done even on shorter distance within reason, done it again.
Aiming is different than with normal shaft as there is less squirt but sverve will take over.
Must shoot soft on this and a slight swipe/swoop across CB can help too.

Wolven, i'm not at all saying you cannot contact the object ball with a low deflection shaft. I'm totally aware that it can be slightly massed. My point is something all together different & is based on the driving spin force direction, not the way the cueball actually travels. What you are describing is performing the shot using different technique than I proposed. The point I was making is that there are shots that can be made with a conventional shaft that bring into question the principles behind low deflection shafts.

Yes, low deflection shafts due squirt less, deflect less, however you prefer to say it. Does it "reduce" the players need to compensate for spin? No. Does it reduce the players need to compensate for deflection? Yes, which is what it's marketed to do.

In the end, when the ball is struck with spin, you have to compensate one direction or the other. It is by now hopefully agreed that spin will curve the ball's path. So if the cue has low squirt & you hit with side spin, then the ball will travel straight for a moment & then begin to curve away from projected path in the direction of the spin. Thus, a fair amount of compensation is required. With a conventional shaft that has "normal" deflection, the same shot will cause the ball to squirt away from projected path momentarily & the spin will pull it back on to an unknown extent because none of this stuff has ever been quanified. It requires a fair amount of compensation, too. So it's not fair to say that low deflection shafts enhance the accuracy of a cue. What's is correct is that they alter the playability & presume different obstacles & playing characteristics for players to learn.

What got my goat was the statement that new players are better off being interested in proven enhancments, or something along those lines. What i'm saying is that there are no known enhancments, just noted & documented differences. Each provide certain challenges the human has to overcome & it's therefore up to each human to choose which they'd prefer.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

qbilder:
Masse & swerve are not the same thing.

They're exactly the same thing, caused by the same kind of spin (spin about a horizontal axis).

"Big masse" (the kind we usually think of as masse) is caused by jacking the cue way up and hitting downward on the CB - this causes the CB to spin about its horizontal axis, which causes it to change direction.

Swerve ("little masse") is the same thing except on a smaller scale - the cue's butt is only slightly elevated (but not level - almost no pool shot is made with a level stick), but enough to cause the same kind of spin and the same kind of direction change, except less of both. This happens on every sidespin shot.

This has been discussed and described over and over again; look it up for more detail. Or check out Dr. Dave's website.

pj
chgo

 

[Wolven]

PJ.
Yes, it does reduce accuracy and it isn't necessary but I was trying to load up the CB as much as possible.
I tried several different shots on the theme with various distances and techniques.

Qbilder
I get your point when comes to the philosophical question of what would be best for the novice player
and if the technology shafts just create different set of problems.
I’m of the opinion that LD can make life a lot easier but the work still has to be done, so it isn’t a substitute for that.

As for the technique I sort of thought I was using the same one with a very small change regarding the aiming line.

In the past, on what I believe to be a related shot:
CB & OB in line with 1st diamond, CB a little closer to pocket actually, OB around 1/3inch of rail.
I have managed to load up the CB to a point that when it did the arc over 2/3 of a 9 ft table the CB hit the OB from the side, actual side not cut hit, pocketing it.
The shot was done with “level cue”. I can do this with just English or combine it with below center hit.

Would that be close to the type of technique you are talking about?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Wolven:
[By using a "swiping" stroke] I was trying to load up the CB as much as possible.

Swiping across the CB doesn't add any more spin than you can get by stroking straight. If you learn that your percentage will go up on shots like this.

pj
chgo

 

[Wolven]

Swiping across the CB doesn't add any more spin than you can get by stroking straight. If you learn that your percentage will go up on shots like this.

pj
chgo

I don't have a habit of doing that when matters it was a scientific study. Yes, the percentage would go up without it.

However, I will agree to disagree on amount of spin generated.
Just put a OB close to the pocket to avoid accuracy issue.
Now put CB close to OB so that you cannot have normal follow and you will see that swipe will give you more spin and CB movement.
This was a technique used by the old masters to get movement in tight spaces.

 

[Island Drive]

IMO,



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

I totally disagree, because if a cue deflects differently it effects every shot from pocketing to shape to the players approach.

 

[troyboy30]

yes no yes no yes no

 

[qbilder]

yes no yes no yes no

At this point, i'm pretty much feeling the same way. Ever heard the term, "kicking tires"?

 

[Hank]

314

Just gave my 314 away for free,I got tired of going back & forth.Already fill relieved 01\01\2010.:smile: