Predator shaft question

[av84fun]

Cornerman...<<The other thing is there really is no reason to think that less cueball deflection is desirable. Some people think that it would be intuitive to want less cueball deflection. Too many people have tried the low squirt shafts and returned to a normal squirt shaft, so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.>>

That empirical evidence is utterly flawed. If someone uses a rubber hammer to pound nails...is told that a steel hammer would be better...uses a steel hammer and doesn't like the soung it makes is no proof whatsoever that the rubber hammer is better..

Of course, less cueball deflection is desirable because it reduces a variable and the reduction of variables is the heart and soul of superiority in reptitive motion activities.

Again, just because someone used to larger amounts of deflection tries a cue with lower amounts and doesn't like it...almost certainly because the player is missing shots...only means that the player didn't understand or take enough time in the process of adjusting his/her aim to account for the lower deflection.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Cornerman]

Cornerman...<<The other thing is there really is no reason to think that less cueball deflection is desirable. Some people think that it would be intuitive to want less cueball deflection. Too many people have tried the low squirt shafts and returned to a normal squirt shaft, so that proves at least empirically that less cueball deflection isn't always desirable.>>

That empirical evidence is utterly flawed. If someone uses a rubber hammer to pound nails...is told that a steel hammer would be better...uses a steel hammer and doesn't like the soung it makes is no proof whatsoever that the rubber hammer is better..

I think you think I"m saying something that I"m not.

The street runs two ways. All of your reasonings are legitimate from both sides. Hence, my view is never going to be that neither is better by themselves. I never said that normal squirt is better or that less squirt is better. So, let's not go down that road, since I never said such a thing. I said that for some people, less squirt isn't always desirable. That's a big difference.

Of course, less cueball deflection is desirable because it reduces a variable and the reduction of variables is the heart and soul of superiority in reptitive motion activities.

That seems to be an intuitive reasoning, but swerve will always be worse than squirt, since swerve is a curve, and squirt is a line. And in the end, it's how one deals with both. Players who don't consciously adjust have naturally been blending the two. So, it's also reasonable to think that some people will want enough squirt to counteract swerve, making the overall compensation less. Which is consistent with what I said earlier: that some people, less squirt isn't always desirable. If there are three people in the world who say they don't desire less squirt, then my statement holds true. That for some people, less squirt isn't always desirable. And I can tell you that there are at least three people on this board who have reverted to normal squirt cues. Because, as I said, for some people, less squirt isn't always desirable.

I'm not saying one way is better or worse. I"m saying that for some people, less squirt isn't always desirable.

Again, just because someone used to larger amounts of deflection tries a cue with lower amounts and doesn't like it...almost certainly because the player is missing shots...only means that the player didn't understand or take enough time in the process of adjusting his/her aim to account for the lower deflection.

From personal experience, and reports from many other players who have returned to normal squirt cues, missing shots with english wasn't the problem. It was the feel of the slow english shots. Probably due to the higher swerve to squirt ratio.

Fred <~~~ doesn't desire less squirt

 

[X Breaker]

That empirical evidence is utterly flawed. If someone uses a rubber hammer to pound nails...is told that a steel hammer would be better...uses a steel hammer and doesn't like the soung it makes was no proof whatsoever that the rubber hammer is better..

I would think each hammer is good in certain applications. If one was first told steel hammer was the best in all applications but later found out steel is only good for certain tasks, I would consider it only logical that he resorted to using rubber in certain tasks and steel in others.

Of course, less cueball deflection is desirable because it reduces a variable and the reduction of variables is the heart and soul of superiority in reptitive motion activities.

Pool requires many motions, but it is not to say that the best way to master this game is to use as little moving part, or to reduce as many variables, as possible.

I think the above statement is just your opinion, or your assumption.

Again, just because someone used to larger amounts of deflection tries a cue with lower amounts and doesn't like it...almost certainly because the player is missing shots...only means that the player didn't understand or take enough time in the process of adjusting his/her aim to account for the lower deflection.

Regards,
Jim

I am afraid this can go both ways: one can also state that when someone cannot make most of the shots with a regular shafts, it only means the player does not understand or take enough time in the process of adjusting his/her aim to account for the deflection of a regular shaft.

 

[Andrew Manning]

I may be wrong in describing it this way, but the anecdote I use is a billiard ball and a bullet. If you were to shoot a cue ball just to left side of center with a BB, the BB would ricochet (deflect) a lot and the cue ball would move to the right just a little bit. If you were to shoot it with a .45 bullet, same place, same speed, the cue ball would move to the right a lot more and the bullet would ricochet a lot less than the bb did. This is simply because the mass and therefore the momentum of the .45 is so much greater and an off center hit directs the vortex at an angle to the bullet's path.

I think the rebound of the ball off the tip happens so quickly that the stiffness of the shaft and any bending of the ferrule will happen after the ball has left the tip anyway.

Chris

Ps. I have also found that some players do not benefit from a low squirt shaft and in fact, may hurt their game with it, and some players (myself included) benefit a lot from it.

Great way of explaining it.

-Andrew

 

[magnetardo]

Its because of the odd sound they make due to the hollowness & factory ferrule...makes a sound people relate to stiff shafts. Sounds like a SW shaft with a Hard Moori/Talisman. I cured the sound by doweling a tenon & then threading on a real ferrule. Deflection-smecktion...I think they play better this way. I currently play with a 314 done that way with a Grice ferrule & Sniper. It plays way better than stock. Ask Tblmjkr (sp?) how he feels...I did his. And its the only way Gerda will play with her 314 now too.

I have a couple questions, I assume your using a maple dowel? If so have you ever tried a different material? something like g-10 or carbon fiber?

 

[av84fun]

Cornerman...<<That seems to be an intuitive reasoning, but swerve will always be worse than squirt, since swerve is a curve, and squirt is a line.>>

No way ON EARTH that is correct. Set up a shot from the break spot and aim and the center of the opposite cushion. Use 2 tips of side. Shoot fairly hard and you will get AT LEAST one ball width deflection with most regular shafts and virtually ZERO swerve. At high speeds, the spin simply does not have a chance to "take."

<<If there are three people in the world who say they don't desire less squirt, then my statement holds true.>>

No, if there are only 3 people out of the 100 million PLUS that play pool who agree with you then you are splitting hairs to a microscopic degree.

<<It was the feel of the slow english shots. Probably due to the higher swerve to squirt ratio.>>

Higer "swerve to squirt ratio??? ROFLMAO!! But you may be right...there may be 3 players in the world who even THINK about such a ratio on more than about 1 shot in 500...i.e. the intentional swerve shot that has substantiall faded from the scene due to jump shots gaining popularity.

The "ratio" that does come into play and that often causes misses is the ratio between squirt and THROW...not swerve.

SLOW stroke = more throw/less (if any) squirt.
HARDER stroke = more squirt/less throw.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

nipponbilliards...<<I would think each hammer is good in certain applications. If one was first told steel hammer was the best in all applications but later found out steel is only good for certain tasks, I would consider it only logical that he resorted to using rubber in certain tasks and steel in others.>>

C'mon man. Now you're arguing for the sake of arguing. NO ONE uses a rubber hammer to POUND NAILS...which was the application I cited in my example.

<<Pool requires many motions, but it is not to say that the best way to master this game is to use as little moving part, or to reduce as many variables, as possible.>>

No. That is EXACTLY wrong. Pool strokes...executed to perfection or in the attempt to do so...DO NOT use "many motions" and the use of "many motions" is one of the main things instructors attempt to get their students NOT to do.

On the contrary, the use of as FEW motions as humanly possible is the correct thing to strive for.

<<I am afraid this can go both ways: one can also state that when someone cannot make most of the shots with a regular shafts, it only means the player does not understand or take enough time in the process of adjusting his/her aim to account for the deflection of a regular shaft.>>

Tell ya what. Just go get yourself a nice warped house cue with a cheap, mushroomed tip and a push on ferule. You can "adjust" to the variables it presents...right?

(-:

Jim

 

[Cornerman]

No way ON EARTH that is correct.

he "ratio" that does come into play and that often causes misses is the ratio between squirt and THROW...not swerve.

Obviously, we're at an impasse.

In my world, spin throw is at the bottom rung. Swerve is at the top. I have my reasons, none of which come haphazardly. I'd appreciate if you respect that. That is, if you think for one second that I don't know what I'm talking about, you'd be very much mistaken. My feeling is that you don't understand swerve or are underestimating the importance of swerve. And that you might be mistaking the results of swerve with the result of spin throw (since they "work" in the same direction). But, needless to say, your statement about the "intentional swerve" tells me we're not on the same page. At an impasse.

I was trying to keep things open and light by saying "at least 3 people." I'm sorry you didn't see why I chose to say that. There are obviously more people than 3. There are hundreds of people who have decided on their own that a lower squirt shaft was not desirable for them, even after trying it out for a fair time. And again, I feel I need to say this yet again: I'm not saying that a low squirt shaft is worse. I'm simply saying that it is not desirable for everyone. Can we stick with that one point?

Fred

 

[shanesinnott]

Maybe somebody will come up with an anti-swerve cue. I'd buy that.

Its called a level cue

 

[X Breaker]

Jim,

I give up.

Best regards,
Richard

 

[av84fun]

cornerman...<<And that you might be mistaking the results of swerve with the result of spin throw (since they "work" in the same direction).>>

First, let me say that I do not intend to be disrespectful of your views. Sometimes being brief and blunt is interpreted as disrespect and I apologize if I conveyed that to you. Disagreeing with you, however, is not an indication of disrespect.

For example, taking your statement above as written, I suggest you are incorrect. In fact, swerve and spin induced throw act in OPPOSITE directions.

For example, LEFT spin can cause a swerve to the LEFT (at an increasing rate depending on the elevation of the cue stick) while LEFT spin induced throw will cause the OB to veer to the RIGHT.

Regards,
Jim

 

[av84fun]

nipponbilliards...<<Jim, I give up.>>

EXCELLENT choice!

(-:

Jim

 

[Varney Cues]

1st test cue done. Shane...just sent you tracking details.
Enjoy my friend. And please...give an honest opinion.
KV

 

[Varney Cues]

I have a couple questions, I assume your using a maple dowel? If so have you ever tried a different material? something like g-10 or carbon fiber?

Very good question sir. And with out giving out too much info...there are a number of options that are lighter than maple...and stiffer...and also more flexible....hmmmmm....wonder which material with what properties works best? Very good question indeed manetardo...rep points for you.

 

[Fuji-whopper]

Stiffer and more flexible, aren't those kind of opposites? Something stiff won't be flexible and vice versa? Then again I don't know much about physics or material properties.

 

[magnetardo]

Very good question sir. And with out giving out too much info...there are a number of options that are lighter than maple...and stiffer...and also more flexible....hmmmmm....wonder which material with what properties works best? Very good question indeed manetardo...rep points for you.

I have another good question for you but I'll pm you on it

 

[JoeyInCali]

On the contrary, the use of as FEW motions as humanly possible is the correct thing to strive for.

That would be logicle but IN MY HUMBLE opinion those who have a fluid long relaxed stroke are better pressure players.
It applies to me too. The more fluid and long my stroke is, the better I play.
I get to see the shaft's angle better with a long fluid stroke and I tend not to "jab" at the ball.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Very good question sir. And with out giving out too much info...there are a number of options that are lighter than maple...and stiffer...and also more flexible....hmmmmm....wonder which material with what properties works best? Very good question indeed manetardo...rep points for you.

Teflon.
Try not to breathe that thing when you're cutting it.

 

[Varney Cues]

Stiffer and more flexible, aren't those kind of opposites?

Thats what I was saying...you kind of missed the point that I wasn't telling all. Both work...how would you like your cue to hit?

 

[BillPorter]

Pardon me for jumping in...

For example, LEFT spin can cause a swerve to the LEFT (at an increasing rate depending on the elevation of the cue stick) while LEFT spin induced throw will cause the OB to veer to the RIGHT.

I see that as having the same effect, namely, the OB goes more to the right than if no spin were put onto the cue ball. Left spin cause the OB to go more toward the right and a swerve to the left will surely cause the OB to go more toward the right. Not so?