Shaft type and amount of draw.

[Wolven]

Thanks for all responses. As one of the stipulations I took the assumption of same stroke.
My stroke is good enough to produce a decent draw and my friend's is even better.

As a test with different cues we setup OB one diamond away from pocket and CB two diamonds away. The draw results for different equipment was different. With OB-1 shaft normal draw on 9ft table was all the way back to the rail and then 1 diamond past side pocket in the other direction. While another shaft would make 2 diamonds less. The difference would get greater when OB & CB were farther apart.

So, yeah I believe equipment will make a difference despite what Scott Lee says and that's why I'm asking the questions in the original post.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... greater flexibility allows for a longer contact

I don't think so, at least not significantly longer.

... the more flex you have, theoreticly, the more spin will be produced.

Again, I don't think so.

You say "theoretically". My theory is that the cueball is long gone before the shaft has time to affect either contact time or spin. What's your theory (I mean why do you think shaft flexibility affects those things)?

pj
chgo

 

[socks]

I don't think so, at least not significantly longer.



Again, I don't think so.

You say "theoretically". My theory is that the cueball is long gone before the shaft has time to affect either contact time or spin. What's your theory (I mean why do you think shaft flexibility affects those things)?

pj
chgo

accourding to darrin brown with predator cues, that is what thier research concluded.

http://www.seyberts.com/phpBB2/showthread.php?t=4258

and it makes sense, regardless of what can be seen with the human eye, there is much more going on than can be percieved. just because it appears to be long gone, that fraction of a second matters.

all this being said, more spin isnt necisarrily always a good thing. more spin on the cue ball also means more spin imparted to the object ball, otherwise known as throw. throw can sometimes be harder to deal with than squirt.

 

[Scott Lee]

Jason...No I am not confused. Dwell time between the tip and CB is about 1/1000th of a second (double that for a soft tip). BTW, it takes you 4/1000ths of a second to blink your eye! Nothing you can do increases that time frame, so the CB is gone "instantly" off the tip. As a result, no tip, shaft, or anything else can significantly change or affect the outcome of the "action" put on the CB. As for getting more or less draw with a Predator shaft, as opposed to a conventional shaft...that is baloney! I will draw the CB the SAME distance (under the same cloth and ball conditions) with ANY cue/shaft...as long as it has a decent tip on it. So...if you're sure of what you're talking about, we can post a significant wager, and meet somewhere, to conduct the experiment. The quality of your stroke has EVERYTHING to do with how much, and how consistently you can draw the CB...and follow it, and stun it, and english it...etc.

Am I an instructor? LMAO I've only been a professional instructor for the past 30 yrs. Hard to believe that you've posted here as long as you have, and you don't know that I'm an instructor...or that you haven't once clicked on the link to my site.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[TSW]

Yes.



No. You can't increase the contact time by altering your stroke.

pj
chgo

Sure you can. If your cue tip accelerates through contact, the tip will stay on the cue ball a fraction of a second longer.

Why do you think pros can get more spin on the cue ball than amateurs? They have to be doing something differently with regard to the physics, and it's not just hitting lower or hitting harder.

 

[jed1894]

Thanks for all responses. As one of the stipulations I took the assumption of same stroke.
My stroke is good enough to produce a decent draw and my friend's is even better.

As a test with different cues we setup OB one diamond away from pocket and CB two diamonds away. The draw results for different equipment was different. With OB-1 shaft normal draw on 9ft table was all the way back to the rail and then 1 diamond past side pocket in the other direction. While another shaft would make 2 diamonds less. The difference would get greater when OB & CB were farther apart.

So, yeah I believe equipment will make a difference despite what Scott Lee says and that's why I'm asking the questions in the original post.

You are dead right and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Equipment does make a difference. I conducted the same test you conducted in a different way and over days (months now) and now put in the mix a Schon. I recently started high-speed photography to make sure the cue ball contact is the same and the test are as accurate as I can get them. Anyone (I don't care how much experience or knowledge they have) who tells me that an OB1 does not put more spin on a Q-ball versus a standard wood shaft either hasn't done enough experimenting, doesn't have an OB1, or just does not know what they're talking about (sorry to challange anyone's expertise). I would love for my OB1s not to put more spin on the ball so I could go ahead and sell them and go back to the maple shafts, but it's simply not true. They do help the player move the cue ball around the table.

I recently started added my friends to my little experiment without them knowing what's going on. Now, they wouldn't know an OB1 from a spaceship because they're mostly weekend pool players and own one pool cue. I'll bring along an extra cue with an OB1 and let them hit some balls. One friend, who could never draw the ball, immediately started the drawing the ball with the OB1 (I ordered him one the next day). The others who were drawing pretty good, got more draw. So, the shaft creates more Q-ball draw.

HOWEVER, whoever said that it also creates more throw on the OB is exactly right. That's the downside to the OB1: you have to be very careful when spinning the Q-ball.

This is just my opinion of course and I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I've been playing pool for 45 years, grew up in a pool hall and now own a pool hall and have two tables at my residence.

JED

 

[Snorks]

You are dead right and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Equipment does make a difference. I conducted the same test you conducted in a different way and over days (months now) and now put in the mix a Schon. I recently started high-speed photography to make sure the cue ball contact is the same and the test are as accurate as I can get them. Anyone (I don't care how much experience or knowledge they have) who tells me that an OB1 does not put more spin on a Q-ball versus a standard wood shaft either hasn't done enough experimenting, doesn't have an OB1, or just does not know what they're talking about (sorry to challange anyone's expertise). I would love for my OB1s not to put more spin on the ball so I could go ahead and sell them and go back to the maple shafts, but it's simply not true. They do help the player move the cue ball around the table.

I recently started added my friends to my little experiment without them knowing what's going on. Now, they wouldn't know an OB1 from a spaceship because they're mostly weekend pool players and own one pool cue. I'll bring along an extra cue with an OB1 and let them hit some balls. One friend, who could never draw the ball, immediately started the drawing the ball with the OB1 (I ordered him one the next day). The others who were drawing pretty good, got more draw. So, the shaft creates more Q-ball draw.

HOWEVER, whoever said that it also creates more throw on the OB is exactly right. That's the downside to the OB1: you have to be very careful when spinning the Q-ball.

This is just my opinion of course and I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I've been playing pool for 45 years, grew up in a pool hall and now own a pool hall and have two tables at my residence.

JED

Well, I will say that either I stroke the ball differently with my stock shaft, or the OB1 definitely puts more spin on the ball. Those are the two options... I consistently get more spin with the OB1 and no one can tell me differently.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Sure you can. If your cue tip accelerates through contact, the tip will stay on the cue ball a fraction of a second longer.

Why do you think pros can get more spin on the cue ball than amateurs? They have to be doing something differently with regard to the physics, and it's not just hitting lower or hitting harder.

Acceleration keeps the tip on the cue ball slightly longer. Changing the timing of your stroke so that you hit at peak acceleration rather than the standard of peak velocity can increase the contact time by maybe 1-2%. But by one reasonable argument, that's exactly the wrong direction to change it if you want more spin for a particular speed. Even more important is that if you want a maximum number of RPMs on the cue ball, hitting the cue ball while the stick is still accelerating is a horrible, misguided, ineffective way to play.

The pros get lots of spin on the ball when they want to by hitting accurately far from center and hitting the ball hard.

Usually misunderstandings such as in the above quote arise because of a confusion between velocity and acceleration. Most people don't really know the difference. For discussing this stuff, it's important to know the difference.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... As a test with different cues we setup OB one diamond away from pocket and CB two diamonds away. The draw results for different equipment was different. With OB-1 shaft normal draw on 9ft table was all the way back to the rail and then 1 diamond past side pocket in the other direction. While another shaft would make 2 diamonds less. The difference would get greater when OB & CB were farther apart. ...

For me, the balance of the stick makes a large difference in how well I can stroke the ball, but I think that's a matter of what I'm used to. It may be that the balance of the two sticks changes either the speed of the hit or the distance below center that you hit.

What fraction of your shots were miscues? The reason that I ask is that if you aren't miscuing some small fraction of the time, you are probably not at the point of maximum draw on the cue ball.

I do think that tips have an effect, but mostly this will be seen between really bad tips and standard, good tips, which all play pretty much the same. I think some of the really cheap imports use cardboard for tips.

Some other draw tests are in the June 2004 article at: http://www.onthebreaknews.com/Jewett3.htm#June04 The tests find the "quality" of your draw which is often more important than the actual raw RPMs.

 

[Scott Lee]

I recently started high-speed photography to make sure the cue ball contact is the same and the test are as accurate as I can get them.

So, you're using high speed film and a high speed camera, capturing images at 4000 frames per second? That's high speed photography. Normal video is 30 frames per second...too slow to see what you're trying to compare.

Anyone (I don't care how much experience or knowledge they have) who tells me that an OB1 does not put more spin on a Q-ball versus a standard wood shaft either hasn't done enough experimenting, doesn't have an OB1, or just does not know what they're talking about (sorry to challange anyone's expertise).

Well, over the years I've played with about every kind of cue/shaft/tip out there, including the OB-1 and Predator, and it is my educated opinion that this is malarkey. The amount of spin you can objectively produce on the CB is directly related to the quality of your stroke...not some piece of equipment.

I recently started added my friends to my little experiment without them knowing what's going on. Now, they wouldn't know an OB1 from a spaceship because they're mostly weekend pool players and own one pool cue. I'll bring along an extra cue with an OB1 and let them hit some balls. One friend, who could never draw the ball, immediately started the drawing the ball with the OB1 (I ordered him one the next day). The others who were drawing pretty good, got more draw. So, the shaft creates more Q-ball draw.

Again...it is not the shaft. I will say that psychologists will tell you, conclusively, that if you REALLY believe that a piece of equipment will make you perform better, it probably will. To what degree is debatable. That's why people play with what they LIKE!

This is just my opinion of course and I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I've been playing pool for 45 years, grew up in a pool hall and now own a pool hall and have two tables at my residence.

JED

Jed...No offense, but I don't care if you've played pool for 145 years, this is a myth...a widely believed myth, but a myth nonetheless.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can't increase the contact time by altering your stroke.

Sure you can. If your cue tip accelerates through contact, the tip will stay on the cue ball a fraction of a second longer.

Accelerating through contact is a myth. It doesn't help anything.

Why do you think pros can get more spin on the cue ball than amateurs?

Because their strokes are reliable enough to allow them to consistently hit farther from center on the cueball.

... it's not just hitting lower or hitting harder.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

It sounds like these are pretty new discussion topics for you. Do you know they've been discussed hundreds of times on forums like this for many years? Do you know that there are many super high speed videos of tip/ball contact? Do you know that several people on this forum (some of them scientists) have themselves performed many controlled tests of these very things?

pj
chgo

 

[Wolven]

To answer Bob Jewett question I would say about 15% of my shots were miscues my friend had none.

To tackle this argument from another direction we all know that some sticks are lower deflection than others. In this case the technology of the shaft affects the performance. So, if the hit on the horizontal axis can have different result depending on technology why not the same difference on vertical axis?

In fact it would make absolutely no sense if there was no effect.
Am I wrong?

 

[jed1894]

Jed...No offense, but I don't care if you've played pool for 145 years, this is a myth...a widely believed myth, but a myth nonetheless.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Man, you got to teach me how to insert text in red like that. That's cool.

I'm not sure about the frames per second. Whatever it is I can see now where I'm hitting the cue ball. I'm using old 35mm cameras and black and white film that I develop myself. The system is a little old but it works for what I'm using it for. I have to have some way to show that I'm hitting the cue ball in the same spot (average out of 20 strokes) and using photography, with a timer on the camera, is the only way so far to show that. I've used a High8 8mm and SuperVHS to video, but when I slow it down on the computer with software, it gets a little fuzzy. I just got a new Canon Rebel that is real fast....going to try that tonight.

The deal with the friends is not what you think. I didn't tell them anything about the OB1 nor my opinion on spin. I did not tell them it would help their draw abilities. They didn't even know about the OB or anything about deflection, throw, etc. I simply told them to try different shots with the cue and see what they thought. The first notable difference, according to them, was the draw shots. This was done with the whole group (6 players not including me) and all, not one or two, but all got better action on the CB with the OB equiped cue. Just to add, the cues they use are Meucci, Joss, Players,

I think this subject is a healthy topic and, by-the-way, I'm not a representative for OB1. I'm sure the Predator is in the same field. I really think the shaft hurts an average person's game in the long run rather than helps it. Furthermore, I was hoping to find that my conclusion was not true or there was a better explanation but I have not. I guess I will respectfully disagree with you because of what I've seen with my own eyes. In my opinion, the shaft, without a doubt, puts more spin on a cue ball. I wouldn't say this if I didn't feel this way because I'm sure you're an expert with more pool/billiard experience than I, but I have become obsessed with this issue. I play pool every night in my pool room from about 8pm to 12pm (been watching politics at the same time on TV), mostly alone, with nothing to do but test and experiment with these shafts. I have 2 now and another one on the way. I know, I have no life.

Thanks for the discussion.....also if you have any experiments I can try to prove your point....lay them on me.

JED

 

[JoeyInCali]

You are dead right and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Equipment does make a difference. I conducted the same test you conducted in a different way and over days (months now) and now put in the mix a Schon. I recently started high-speed photography to make sure the cue ball contact is the same and the test are as accurate as I can get them. Anyone (I don't care how much experience or knowledge they have) who tells me that an OB1 does not put more spin on a Q-ball versus a standard wood shaft either hasn't done enough experimenting, doesn't have an OB1, or just does not know what they're talking about (sorry to challange anyone's expertise). I would love for my OB1s not to put more spin on the ball so I could go ahead and sell them and go back to the maple shafts, but it's simply not true. They do help the player move the cue ball around the table.

I recently started added my friends to my little experiment without them knowing what's going on. Now, they wouldn't know an OB1 from a spaceship because they're mostly weekend pool players and own one pool cue. I'll bring along an extra cue with an OB1 and let them hit some balls. One friend, who could never draw the ball, immediately started the drawing the ball with the OB1 (I ordered him one the next day). The others who were drawing pretty good, got more draw. So, the shaft creates more Q-ball draw.

HOWEVER, whoever said that it also creates more throw on the OB is exactly right. That's the downside to the OB1: you have to be very careful when spinning the Q-ball.

This is just my opinion of course and I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I've been playing pool for 45 years, grew up in a pool hall and now own a pool hall and have two tables at my residence.

JED

I agree 100%.

 

[Jal]

...Even more important is that if you want a maximum number of RPMs on the cue ball, hitting the cue ball while the stick is still accelerating is a horrible, misguided, ineffective way to play.

Can you explain this Bob? (Yes, we've had this argument before and I'm still mystified as to why you keep saying this.)

Jim

 

[mullyman]

I'm going to be one of the ones that says it's stroke. I can draw a ball the length of the table with my cue or a house cue. And to be honest, I don't really need to be able to do much more than that. I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I needed to draw 2 table lengths. And let's face it, if you don't hit it the right way it doesn't matter what shaft you use, it isn't going to draw.
MULLY

 

[jed1894]

One more thing to say and I'm going to sit back and read other comments (it's time to hit the pool room with my son and daughter, who are upcoming champs):

I forgot to add, I have about 50 hours of actual pool time playing with the OB1 shafts and conducting my little experiments. Not just playing with an OB1, but conducting actual test with the shaft compared to other shafts, tips, tapers, etc. I've probably spend $1500 in the last two months buying tips and cues to put into the mix. I would like to know of anyone else on this site that has invested that kind of time. I would love to compare notes.

JEd

 

[mullyman]

As a test with different cues we setup OB one diamond away from pocket and CB two diamonds away. The draw results for different equipment was different. With OB-1 shaft normal draw on 9ft table was all the way back to the rail and then 1 diamond past side pocket in the other direction. While another shaft would make 2 diamonds less. The difference would get greater when OB & CB were farther apart.

Let me see if I'm reading this correctly.....see diagram.

CueTable Help

When you said the CB was 2 diamonds away I wasn't sure if you meant 2 diamonds from the pocket (A) or 2 diamonds from the OB ball (B). Either way, I wouldn't call this "normal" draw. That's putting some juice on it if you're coming all the way down table and then going half way back up. I would say it's humanly impossible to impart the exact same speed of stroke and contact point on the CB on 2 shots like this. The other shaft coming up 2 diamonds short could have been from any number of things. I would think this type of test would work better just drawing to mid table or to the end rail rather than trying to max it out.
MULLY

 

[BRKNRUN]

I won't argue with science...apparantly someone has set up a robot and used different shafts,tapers, tips, weights etc to test that none of them has an effect on how much draw a robot would get.


Problem is...None of us are robots.

Cue weight, shaft flex, tip hardness (feel) can all play a role in the timing, and cue controle of the stroke and thus produce different results....(even though it feels like you put the exact same stroke on the ball)

Lucky for us...most of us have brains and understand that a different set up will produce a slightly different timing and accuracy of the stroke.....Even though it feels like we are putting the exact same stroke on the CB......In the end each person will have different draw (and even follow or side spin results) with different cues.

The trick is to find the one that "fits" you.

I also believe that confidence in the results leads to better results....Interestingly...I just recently picked up an OB1 shaft and like many others before me I am experiencing extremly better draw follow and english results...with seemingly much less effort.... Even when I go back to my other shaft to try and re-produce the same stroke as with the OB1 shaft....the results are not the same.

I wonder of the "expectations" that I had for the performance are part of the reson I get better results.

Actually I feel like the OB1 puts almost too much spin on the ball....any slight deviation from an accurate stroke will put unwanted english on the CB and can lead to some seemingly amazing throw on the OB.

 

[Jal]

I would think it's the opposite. The longer the tip remains in contact with the cue ball, the more spin you get. That's why a good stroke usually accelerates through the cue ball, maintaining tip contact for a longer period of time and imparting more spin.

The spin on the cueball is determined by:

1) The mass of the cue in relation to the mass of the cueball;

2) The speed of the cue;

3) The offset of the contact point from center;

4) The end mass of the cue (squirt);

5) The efficiency of the cue and tip (how much energy is wasted).

The contact time is mainly a function of the compressibility of the tip, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the cue. When you have a very compressible tip (ie, a soft one), the contact time is increased. But this doesn't really get you anything (as far as I understand it) since the force between the tip and cueball takes more time to build up. The peak force that develops is also reduced. What nature giveth with one hand, it taketh away with the other.

In brief, the cueball's spin is in accord with the conservation laws of momentum and energy, which, gratefully, can be figured without reference to the details of the collision such as the evolution of the force over time and the length of the contact period. These details are adjusted, as if by magic, to comply with these laws. And, in fact, the contact time generally increases as the parts of the system are less efficient (lose more mechanical energy). The ultimate in inefficiency would be to have the cue and ball stick together and move off at the same speed. In this scenario, you would have a potentially infinite contact time (until something pulled them apart).

Now I'll get off my soap box and hope that nobody proves me wrong.

Jim