Predator 314 or Original Shaft?

[X Breaker]

Richard,
Interesting data...but I think a little misleading.

Nick, with all due respect, what was the conclusions of my data, how was that conclusion misleading?

Most TOP PRO's play what they are paid to play with or are given. End of discussion full stop.

With all due respect, I am not sure if you are correct there.

Market share is king and they own the crown.

Which market are you referring to?

When they can get $200.00 for a mass produced shaft they must be doing something right.
Nick

Well, good for them, but why is this relevant?

I never said Predator picked top ten players, as a matter of fact, I do not know how they came up with "65% top ranking pro" and I am not sure how it would be possible to come up with that claim.

You suggested BCA top 100 finishers, so that is in your opinion of "top pros"?

You see, everyone has a different definition of "top pro", it is important to have the sample stated clearly. I picked top 10 players on the WPBA, and I stated that. If you do not agree, at least you know how I reach my conclusion, and how I come up with my data.

I did not say because the top ten pros on the WPBA tour do not all use 314, so 314 is no good, or that the claim on the Predator site is wrong.

My conclusion was that 33.3% of the top 10 ranking WPBA pros are playing with a 314 shaft, 66.6% are not.

I was posting the female data in response to av84fun's post. For men's pro ranking, I do not know how to find a set of meaningful ranking.

Dont you think when Predator makes a claim of 65% top male pros in the nation using their product, they need to make it clear how they define "top pro," who are they, and how they come up with the data: are they also counting breaking cues, breaking shaft...what if they give a cue/shaft to a pro but the guy never uses it, does that count?

I certainly have not seen 65% of top pros using 314 in any of the tournaments I have attended.

Do you know where we can find reference to that data?

Most importantly, av48fun, do you know the answers to these questions when you said "a hugh number of top pros are using low deflection shafts..." as if this is a well founded fact?

Richard

 

[GTeye]

, I do not know how they came up with "65% top ranking pro" and I am not sure how it would be possible to come up with that.

But you conveniently have come up with your own set of statistics based on just 10 people to disprove their set of statistics that you are openly admitting that you do not know how they came to that conclusion even though they list 74 names on their websites page that talks about the 65% figure? Many which list next to their names things like WPBA Ranked 28th. (Hmm not top 10) Ah I see.

-------------------------------

Predator's website never claims top 10, so to use the top 10 as a basis to disprove their claim is meaningless.

In the statistics world you would be dealing with larger numbers though. I can pool 10% of 10 people and then only one persons opinion would matter. There has to be some relationship between the amount of data collected and the amount of data that exists.

Predator's websites list then goes on to list many,many,many players, 74 in fact, who use(d) their shafts and that list contains many people who aren't top 10 players, in fact each name lists information about their ranking, where they are ranked and what tournmanets they won, so that alone is implying that their data is not decided by what the top 10 are using.

Could we not apply the same argument to Mr. Nippons Xbreaker site?

He has some convenient wording there we could argue about some:

"The followings are some of the professional players who have purchased/used the X Breaker (in no particular order"

What shall we deduct from that statement?

How many were given shafts? How many only hit a single shot with one after being asked hey want to try this break cue? How many bought it to try it then threw it in their closet? Were any people given incentives to purchase the cue?

I have no idea, the website doesn't explain in that detail, should it have to? Not to me.

Don't get me wrong, I've heard nothing but praise for the Xbreaker and in fact I plan to get one eventually myself but my point is that the validity of any claim can be questioned by skewing what the original claim meant to begin with and I don't take the claims on that site to be any more than what it's trying to imply, and that's that "hey, look alot of people that play for money use our product so check it out" and that's the same type thing that predator is trying to imply as well, imo.

 

[Nick B]

Although I think we may have different definition's of "child's play", I agree that it's very difficult to get the ball airborne with a predator. Are there any non-airborne shots you know of that become very difficult with a predator?

-Andrew

Look I play with Predators...so I obviously have made a educated decision. Nobody is beating down my door to endorse their product. I think I've proved my point. The ones that are more difficult are were you want to get a off the table a little. Nip draws and delayed action draws etc. In general I find conventional shafts masse better. This I cannot quantify. These shots are all feel. Running draw, stun-followthrough and "walking swerve" shots are also best done with conventional shafts or at least I get better results with.

As far as child's play. Practice a shot 100 times until you own it. Make it a dozen times in high pressure big matches and it get's easy when your playing for laughes. We all have shots that we like.

Nick

 

[Cornerman]

In general I find conventional shafts masse better. This I cannot quantify. These shots are all feel. Running draw, stun-followthrough and "walking swerve" shots are also best done with conventional shafts or at least I get better results with.

These are pretty much the shots that made me revert back to a normal shaft. And since there was no improvemnt on the firm english shots, but reduction in some of this english and spin touch shots, there was no reason to stick with the low squirt shafts. Do you think that it's simply a feel issue, or do you think the cueball is doing something different? Or is that the same question?

The "walking swerve," I'm assuming I know what you're talking about. You end up swerving a hair too much everytime, and that destroys your shot.

Fred

 

[av84fun]

cornerman...<<FWIW, Cuetec makes four or five different styles of shaft. To my knowledge, none of them claim to have low squirt characteristcs.>>

Sorry but I believe you are quite mistaken. This is from the Cue-Tec website

"The Cuetec VORTEX™ Shaft is:

The most durable maple shaft ever created!
The most powerful maple shaft ever made!
The best controlling deflection, squirt and distortion.
The most consistent playing shaft available.
The sharpest performing shaft available. "

I agree with you that "deflection" used alone is misleading. "Squirt" should be the term used when referring to the deflection in path of CB motion due to an off center hit from the cue stick.

Regards,
Jim

Not only to they claim lower deflection, they say they are the BEST at doing so. They are not referring to CUE STICK DEFLECTION...

 

[X Breaker]

But you conveniently have come up with your own set of statistics based on just 10 people to disprove their set of statistics that you are openly admitting that you do not know how they came to that conclusion even though they list 74 names on their websites page that talks about the 65% figure? Many which list next to their names things like WPBA Ranked 28th. .

Thank you for visiting my web site.

This is a very long sentence.

I think you have misunderstood me by thinking I was trying to pick 10 players to disprove the claim on Predator's web site. Please reread my post, I never said that.

I was writing in response to Jim, aka av48fun's statements, namely, 'a hugh number of top pros are using low deflection..." and "Allsion Fisher is playing with a low deflection shaft.."

By the way, for the record, this data (65% top pro and so on) on the Predator web site was brought up not by me, but by Jim, aka av48fun. He was the one who asked if Predator was engaging in false advertising.

When someone refers to a set of "top" pros, I would assume these are the best players out there playing. If I want to look at the best girls, I will look at the WPBA ranking...if I want to look at the best men, where do I look? The UPA? They only have less than 10 tournaments a year? The WPA? What about the APBU?

So, I suggested at looking at World Champions, since obviously they are the "top" players. And if I look at that, we can only find one World Champion ever winning the WPC with a 314.

I know you will not like this sample, you think it is misleading. You like a sample that says 65 %.

Richard

 

[X Breaker]

cornerman...<<FWIW, Cuetec makes four or five different styles of shaft. To my knowledge, none of them claim to have low squirt characteristcs.>>

Sorry but I believe you are quite mistaken. This is from the Cue-Tec website

"The Cuetec VORTEX™ Shaft is:

The most durable maple shaft ever created!
The most powerful maple shaft ever made!
The best controlling deflection, squirt and distortion.
The most consistent playing shaft available.
The sharpest performing shaft available. "

I agree with you that "deflection" used alone is misleading. "Squirt" should be the term used when referring to the deflection in path of CB motion due to an off center hit from the cue stick.

Regards,
Jim

Not only to they claim lower deflection, they say they are the BEST at doing so. They are not referring to CUE STICK DEFLECTION...

Where does it say the Vortex shaft offers the player "low deflection?"

Thank you.

Richard

 

[GTeye]

If I was to bother to attempt to figure out the 65% number I would start by using the sources that are cited in their list, regardless of whether you personally agree that they fit into the "top pro" category or not.

Then you'd need to contact all of these people and ask them if they ever used a predator product and if the statement about them is true or a lie. Then you'll also need to contact predator and ask them about their data collection practices and sources.

Their website also does not say that those 74 names are the only ones, so we cannot logically use that "74" number as the basis of any statistical proof to prove or disprove a 65% figure, it most likely is just the 74 people they chose to put up there when they created the website from their sample data.

Is the 65% number accurate? Probably based on the criteria they used to arrive at 65 percent. Is it some incredible ground breaking thing that proves that predator owns the world? Certainly not.

Personally if it was my company i would never have put a number up there, for this very reason, espescially because that # will always be changing and there is no way to constantly update a website.

It wouldn't surprise me if the basis for their data is weak in the least but my issue is using just the top 10 ranked people from your source isn't really cutting it to actually prove anything in regards to their claim.

 

[Fuji-whopper]

Wasn't there a date or ranking system that they used to get this number? I doubt they would just claim 65% straight out of thin air.

 

[shanesinnott]

If you go to Predators' website here: http://www.predatorcues.com/predator_cues_pros.html

....you will find the following statement:

"There's a reason it's called Predator
Ask any of the more than 65 percent of the nation's top-ranked male pros who've chosen our shafts for their exceptional accuracy why our cues can't be compared to others--or ask beginning and intermediate players how Predator takes their performance places it's never been."

Based on what I am reading they are implying 65% of top ranked American Male Pool Players? or 65% of UPA players? as they say "the nation's" How many players make up the 100% is not clear, nor is which group the claim was made from. Could be 65 of the top 100 UPA could also be 13 of the top 20 or 26 of the top 40 or 52 of the top 80 as that is still 65% Maybe check with Predator for clarification: 1-888-314-4111

 

[X Breaker]

It wouldn't surprise me if the basis for their data is weak in the least but my issue is using just the top 10 ranked people from your source isn't really cutting it to actually prove anything in regards to their claim.

Gteye,

I agree with you. I have said it many times, I was not trying to use the top 10 ranked WPBA players to "actually prove anything in regards to their claim".

I can give you more than 10 names on that list who are not using Predator, and I can give you a few who have never used Predator product in a single day of his/her career. I can also show you names on that list who have never played with a Predator shaft. I did not do that, because I am not trying to prove their claim is false.

I was responding to another post, whose poster thought that a "hugh number of pros are using low deflection.." and he felt that this was a given fact. I asked him why, and then he quoted the Predator claim. I could not see how Predator could come up with such a claim, and I could not find their source.

I could not see how they could come up with such a claim accurately. Since there is really not a single official ranking system in Men's Pool. Since there are so many associations, they need to specify which association, and when and how the data was obtained.

See, there is the UPA, who holds a hand full of tournaments a year in the US, then another poster suggested the BCA, what about the WPA, or APBU, which consists of many world champions.

And how do they define "top players?"...is it the top 10, top 20, or top 100? Is it someone who has won a major title, or just anyone who paid a membership fee to UPA?

So, I said how about if we looked at the World Champions as these are certainly the top players. Unfortunately, only one out of more than ten ex world champions won the World title with a 314.

This poster then said if we were to look at World Champions, we need to look at Allison Fisher. This poster said Allison uses a low deflection shaft.

So, I went to find out the shafts use by the top ten pros on the WPBA tour, to see if it is true that "a hugh number of top pros" are using a 314 shafts on the WPBA. I found that 33.3% of the top ten ranked players on the WPBA use a 314 shaft.

This poster also asked if Predator was using false advertising when it states that over 65% of the top male pros in the nation are using their product. I said I do not think so, but it is a matter of interpretation, seeing how the source of the data is unclear.

I am sure there is a sample out there they can provide which can justify their claim. So, no, I am not trying to prove that their claim is false. But I do not know where this sample is, and I suspect a randomly picked sample of the top ten players from a major governing body (APBU, WPA, WPBA) may show a much lower number.

I hope this has served to make it clear to you why I posted what I posted. I understand with these many posts it is hard to expect anyone to read every single post.

Thank you.

Richard

 

[GTeye]

Seems odd to me that there haven't been lawsuits if peoples names are up there who never even played with a predator shaft.

I know if a company put my name on a list and proceeded to make money off a product I'd be mighty pissed off.

 

[X Breaker]

Seems odd to me that there haven't been lawsuits if peoples names are up there who never even played with a predator shaft.

I know if a company put my name on a list and proceeded to make money off a product I'd be mighty pissed off.

I would guess if a player wants to sue them they will just take the player's name off. This is another topic anyway.

 

[Andrew Manning]

Look I play with Predators...so I obviously have made a educated decision. Nobody is beating down my door to endorse their product. I think I've proved my point.

Hey man, I don't want to come across as if I'm trying to attack what you're saying, I'm just pressing you for specifics so I might learn something.

In general I find conventional shafts masse better. This I cannot quantify. These shots are all feel.

I agree that conventional shafts seem to masse better. Possibly because masse shots involve sort of "squeezing" the CB between the tip and the cloth, creating extra pressure and thus extra spin/speed ratio, and the predator shaft deflects away from the ball more quickly and doesn't produce as much pressure.

Running draw, stun-followthrough and "walking swerve" shots are also best done with conventional shafts or at least I get better results with.

I don't know what "running draw" or "walking swerve" are. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,
Andrew

 

[X Breaker]

Hey man, I don't want to come across as if I'm trying to attack what you're saying, I'm just pressing you for specifics so I might learn something.



I agree that conventional shafts seem to masse better. Possibly because masse shots involve sort of "squeezing" the CB between the tip and the cloth, creating extra pressure and thus extra spin/speed ratio, and the predator shaft deflects away from the ball more quickly and doesn't produce as much pressure.



I don't know what "running draw" or "walking swerve" are. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,
Andrew

May be running draw is those follow shots when you hit below the center of the cue ball? Like those maximum spin follow shots? It would allow your cue ball to hit closer to the rail than using top follow.

Of course I could be way off base here.

 

[TATE]

Well, I always like compliments, but I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't everybody take spin into account when appraising the difficulty of a shot? It seems to me that all players who are any good, even those with very limited physics understanding, know that spin adds a lot of complicating factors to a shot.

-Andrew

I was just thinking about this post:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=40915

As you know, sometimes it's the spin that makes the shot difficult. I've found that a lot of players don't really take this into account when assessing their options, and they miss more than they should because of it.

Chris

 

[Nick B]

These are pretty much the shots that made me revert back to a normal shaft. And since there was no improvemnt on the firm english shots, but reduction in some of this english and spin touch shots, there was no reason to stick with the low squirt shafts. Do you think that it's simply a feel issue, or do you think the cueball is doing something different? Or is that the same question?

The "walking swerve," I'm assuming I know what you're talking about. You end up swerving a hair too much everytime, and that destroys your shot.

Fred

Fred,
My results are somewhat different. Firm inside cueing is were the Predator shines (IMHO).

Walking Swerve = Draw (You don't hit down on it) + Side Spin were the cue ball floats out straight(ish) and then bites left or right at the moment the draw wears off. Usefully when you need to sneak between a couple of offending balls and the throws in a object ball or just making a hit. The masse won't work because it's more of a hook and you need to go wide and then come in.

I can hit the shot with both shafts...just better with conventional.

CueTable Help

Nick

 

[pooltchr]

When they can get $200.00 for a mass produced shaft they must be doing something right.

Could it just simply be that P.T. Barnham was right?
Just offering another option!
Steve

 

[Nick B]

Could it just simply be that P.T. Barnham was right?
Just offering another option!
Steve

I was speaking strictly about market share and perceived value. Then again you could be right.

Nick

 

[Cornerman]

Fred,
My results are somewhat different. Firm inside cueing is were the Predator shines (IMHO).

I won't disagree with you. I do think that's a big benefit for many players. For me, I already could hit firmly with inside english before I ever tried a Predator cue. I took a lesson from Grady in '92 or so, and he opened my eyes to what "cueball deflection" was. After reading the internet forums and finding out what Backhand English and a Pivot Point were, those things made the inside english shot more palatable and understandable. And I use the same technique today. So, the Predator's strength was not an improvement for me. So at this stage, a lower squirt shaft is something that I don't desire. But I think everyone should at least try one for themselves.

Walking Swerve = Draw (You don't hit down on it) + Side Spin were the cue ball floats out straight(ish) and then bites left or right at the moment the draw wears off.

Yup. We're on the same page on this shot. It and the like were the shots I never could remember to aim differently, and it made me give up on the low squirt shaft after a year and half. Can't say I didn't give it a fair shake.

To that point, I found that soft massé shots (close quarters) were a strength using a Predator cue , since there's little to no squirt to consider. But the big hooks, and the long wide out and ins, you really need to aim somewhere completely different with low squirt cue.

Fred