Putting a Predator or OB-1 Shaft on custom?
- Thread starter 219Dave
- Start date
- Status
I thought the test was for deflection?dave sutton said:
Did any of the testers make an accuracy claim?
Do you think slightly less or slightly more deflection is the deciding factor in accuracy? If not, what percentage of accuracy as a whole do you think changing the degree of deflection has?
Not true.rhncue said:
rhncue said:
Jerking may NOT cause a person to miss an OBJECT ball if you know how to place a cue properly.
Sure you can say I'm crazy, if you do not know what I'm talking about.
rhncue said:
I never say their tests are false. They tested for deflection on every shafts and I agree with their result. They never stated nor claimed that low deflection shaft is accurate when using English.
Many do not know how to comprehend the chart. Most people get misguided with the chart, thinking that a lower deflection shaft will be 100% accurate when using english. Those who know how to comprehend the chart will be beneficial to them whether a player or a cuemaker.
Let me ask you this, did you never miss a shot while playing english with a low deflection shaft?
Steve Titus is a genious, I'm not saying he is lying.
Beginner and many other may benefits from this L.D.Shaft.
Minority of group that know the physic between the cueball and shaft may find a solid maple shaft easier to play then compare to a L.D.Shaft which is important to play better pool
I am saying this is not to find fault with you nor with BPG24. But to show you what people are pointing out. Hope you guys are not offended. If you are, Sorry.
Sheldon said:
This is exactly what I am trying to say. I'm saying that the shaft that deflects the least is the most accurate as the cue ball is more closely going to where it was intended, with out compensation, when using english. What other criteria would you want to use to determine accuracy? You could possibly build a shaft, that when aimed at a certain spot, consistently hit another spot 100 out of 100 times. However, I would call that shaft very consistent, not very accurate.
Dick
What do you mean by without compensation?rhncue said:
Predator claimed that their shaft has 50% lesser deflection compare to standard shaft.
If you aim without compensation, what happen to the remaining 50% of the deflection.
Dick, the standard shaft that you building is consistent enough to get the work done. Why, you not confident in your own work? If im there right now, I take one of your cue and show you.rhncue said:
Buying high tech shaft won't make you a better player.
Spending money on knowledge will make you a better player.
A very valid point.rhncue said:
But consider this: If a pool cue had a sight on it, or a scope for aiming, I think a low deflection shaft would probably be a pretty big benefit. However, pool is more about the subconscious and muscle memory than physically aiming at things. The adjustment made for deflection is only one of many factors. Some players perceive slightly less deflection as an advantage, others don't.
dave sutton
Banned
icem3n said:
Sheldon said:
deflection = accuracy
the whole idea is to get LESS DEFLECTION to be MORE ACCURATE.
not the point i was making. in every experiment there has to be a constant. the robot provides that by hitting the ball same stregnth same speed in the same place everytime.
something a human can not do consistantly.
dave sutton
Banned
BPG24 said:
ill tell you what i did a few 1st gen 314's
but
when i was cutting the ferrule off of the 314 2 i was suprised what i saw. how it was constructed the depth of the bore and the fact there was no foam and how the ferrule was glued
after seeing that it made sense why it felt dead
i took a 1.25'' full ivory ferrule ( which comes slightly longer)
cut a tenon .850 in length and put that into the shaft. made the a ferrule .750 orig .600 on the 314 2
in other words i have almosy a 1 in tenon into the shaft to fill that long bore.
plays 1,000,000% better still very stiff with alot of feel
it appears that some people here believe that deflection is accuracy.i along with some of the others think there is more to accuracy than just deflection.i think Richard used the gun comparason,but then why couls you or i shoot on the Olympic rifle team if we had the same equiptment as they.there must be more to it than just having a .22-.250.some will be better shots than others.accuracy is much more than deflection.
dave sutton
Banned
masonh said:
i agree 100% moch more to accuracy then deflection but by eliminating one aspect of the problem (deflection) it gives you a good start
like i stated before if you can play you can play with anything. i have a very very good friend name joey testa. for a long time i said he had what it takes to play these top guys. he finished 16-32 in the us open last year. this was his first major pro event. completely destroying parica in the process.
anyways long story short he does not like a predator shaft. yet he rarely misses a ball with one. he can play with anything but chooses ivory ferrule and maple shaft
all prefrence
Here is my question in this whole thing, from a players view point. What difference does the test truely make? if I play better and I play a more consistent game with a laminated shaft, thats what I will play with. If the opposite is true, then thats what I will play with. Its still all subjective.
If the goal is to make balls and win and I feel and can see the difference in "my" game between shafts, I will choose the best for me. There is more than deflection in consistent play. If for example I see less consistent control of position with a Certain shaft, why would I use it?
I personally find I have less cue ball control with laminated shafts. I find in my style of play, the spin imparted is more greatly affected be stroke speed and is less controllable. You as a player may find you play better with one. Again subjective, to hell with what some test says about deflection.
As a "center ball" player, I like a really stiff playing cue. I horse the cue ball around more "high" and "low" instead of "side" when ever possible. But I find the difference in laminated shafts is when I do "spin" a ball, I have less position control compared to maple, again subjective. Is my choice wrong? Or yours? Does it matter what the test shows?
I know several top players who tried laminates and after several months, went back to standard maple shafts because their "game" deteroriated from inconsistent control. I know several players that love the way they play. Who's wrong?
So it still comes down to a subjective issue for each player. Because the test shows less deflection, is only part of how a shaft may play in real terms of the overall performance, for a particular player.
There is more to a shafts playability than deflection.
Superior? For who? All players? Prove it.
If the goal is to make balls and win and I feel and can see the difference in "my" game between shafts, I will choose the best for me. There is more than deflection in consistent play. If for example I see less consistent control of position with a Certain shaft, why would I use it?
I personally find I have less cue ball control with laminated shafts. I find in my style of play, the spin imparted is more greatly affected be stroke speed and is less controllable. You as a player may find you play better with one. Again subjective, to hell with what some test says about deflection.
As a "center ball" player, I like a really stiff playing cue. I horse the cue ball around more "high" and "low" instead of "side" when ever possible. But I find the difference in laminated shafts is when I do "spin" a ball, I have less position control compared to maple, again subjective. Is my choice wrong? Or yours? Does it matter what the test shows?
I know several top players who tried laminates and after several months, went back to standard maple shafts because their "game" deteroriated from inconsistent control. I know several players that love the way they play. Who's wrong?
So it still comes down to a subjective issue for each player. Because the test shows less deflection, is only part of how a shaft may play in real terms of the overall performance, for a particular player.
sharpq said:
There is more to a shafts playability than deflection.
Superior? For who? All players? Prove it.
dave sutton said:
I've said it a number of times and I'll say it again. A Predator, or any low deflection shaft, is not for everybody. There are a lot of drawbacks that go along with the shafts ability to lower deflection. These drawbacks can be overcome by some players and others can't. That is just a personal preference. I offer Predator shafts for my cues if a customer wants one. I certainly never push them.
With this being said, Predator has spent a lot of time and money to come up with their low deflection product. These shafts certainly are not cheap to purchase. What I can't understand is - for what reason would a person spend all of that money on a low deflection shaft and then change the ferrule and or fill the void with a substance so as to detract from the shafts ability to lesson deflection? Predator. I'm sure, knows of all of the complaints people have about the dead feel and other drawbacks concerning their shafts. If a little change would eliminate the drawbacks and still retain the shafts main priority of low deflection, do you not think that they would make this change themselves? I've used this analogy before but it fits here: A person can buy a Nascar race car for 500,000 or so and run on a track taking curves at 200 mph. That is what the car is designed for and to attain this ability they have to use an extremely stiff suspension. This makes for a very uncomfortable ride like there is no springs what so ever and every pebble you run over can be felt running up and down your spine. Now you don't like this ride and replace with real cushiony springs and shocks and tires and now this race car rides as good as any Ford. Thing is, now the car flips when you go around a curve at 100 mph. By making your changes you took a 500,000 race car and turned it into a 20,000 family sedan. Why pay the extra money for low deflection when a regular shaft, for half the price is apparently, actually what you want.
Dick
dave sutton
Banned
i didnt fill the entire gap just a small portion. it was like 2 in or more. i put like 3/4 in tenon for structures sake. i wante4d it to never come out
didnt change the deflection just added feel. still very stiff and solid
i think weve learned in life and esp in the cue making world that just bc something is done one way it isnt the best way.
apparently birdseye and curly maple was "jusk" not too long ago
didnt change the deflection just added feel. still very stiff and solid
i think weve learned in life and esp in the cue making world that just bc something is done one way it isnt the best way.
apparently birdseye and curly maple was "jusk" not too long ago
dave sutton said:
I have to agree with you the Robot does provide constant result.
Now, what is the point of you getting the Robot to show you the difference in deflection, if someone can't see the differences.
So it makes no point whether you used one or not.
Less deflection = more accurate ?
Can you say 100% accurate?
Dave try this test with the lowest deflection cue you got( i have asked before)
Place two balls, 1 c/b and 1 o/b, 5 feets or more, you can try less if you not comfortable. Now play a stop shot with english. You tell yourself how its accurate. (if you know the trick you, It would be easy)
As I said before, It's not the technology. It is how the technique(knowledge again) used by a Player counts.
If the ball is 6 feet away, can you guarantee that you will pot the ball with english using L.D. shaft?
If I placed a cut shot, that you have never ever come across, can you guarantee that the accuracy of the L.D. shaft claim will help you pot the ball?
You don't simply take a sniper and shoot someone 2 miles away. No matter how accurate the sniper is. What other things have you considered, before shooting? Do you think you will really hit the target by shooting blindly?
Same apply to pool, playing pool is not about simply assuming or by feeling and saying " Yeap, I think this ball will go in."
You need to know the reaction of the two balls.
You need to calculate the amount or swerve or amout of squirt or throw.
You need to know how to place your cue.
The table cloths, the amount of grease on the ball or the rail and many other things that can pop up and you have to take the shot differently.
Two men given the same sniper. Shooting from 2 miles away. Who do you think will die first?
Same apply to pool, playing pool is not about simply assuming or by feeling and saying " Yeap, I think this ball will go in."
You need to know the reaction of the two balls.
You need to calculate the amount or swerve or amout of squirt or throw.
You need to know how to place your cue.
The table cloths, the amount of grease on the ball or the rail and many other things that can pop up and you have to take the shot differently.
Two men given the same sniper. Shooting from 2 miles away. Who do you think will die first?
- Status