Swerve and Deflection? Any great Youtube videos?

[Bobkitty]

I have a REVO shaft and supposedly "the deflection" should be less than other LD shafts, but when I drive the CB hard, I still get about 1/2 ball deflection at the 8 foot table length on my 9 foot table up against the end rail. As I am practicing English, the normal easy path or moderate path of the CB into the OB, I can allow for the spin of the CB to drive the OB directly to the pocket. But at harder shots, I have to almost aim at the CB directly into the OB for a direct line shot for a 15 degree bend with inside English because of the "deflection" of the CB. I am looking for some guidance along this subject.

 

[Neil]

Dr. Dave has a loi of material on it.

 

[Cornerman]

I have a REVO shaft and supposedly "the deflection" should be less than other LD shafts, but when I drive the CB hard, I still get about 1/2 ball deflection at the 8 foot table length on my 9 foot table up against the end rail. As I am practicing English, the normal easy path or moderate path of the CB into the OB, I can allow for the spin of the CB to drive the OB directly to the pocket. But at harder shots, I have to almost aim at the CB directly into the OB for a direct line shot for a 15 degree bend with inside English because of the "deflection" of the CB. I am looking for some guidance along this subject.

Welcome to the world of squirt (cueball deflection). Believe it or not, this is correct and consistent, even with low squirt cues.

 

[Bobkitty]

Welcome to the world of squirt (cueball deflection). Believe it or not, this is correct and consistent, even with low squirt cues.

I think it is also, but the knowledge that must be amazed is amazing! I suppose all professionals can hit the ball as hard as they want and pocket the ball with huge massive English. I suppose practice and even more practice.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

I have a REVO shaft and supposedly "the deflection" should be less than other LD shafts, but when I drive the CB hard, I still get about 1/2 ball deflection at the 8 foot table length on my 9 foot table up against the end rail. As I am practicing English, the normal easy path or moderate path of the CB into the OB, I can allow for the spin of the CB to drive the OB directly to the pocket. But at harder shots, I have to almost aim at the CB directly into the OB for a direct line shot for a 15 degree bend with inside English because of the "deflection" of the CB. I am looking for some guidance along this subject.

You're looking for guidance because you've become confused. Low deflection doesn't mean no deflection. And when you're using side spin, if you're using max side spin on full table length shots. You're doing it wrong. Figure out what tip placement means no deflection or swerve for 9'. It should also mean you'll be hitting the cueball firmer to offset the swerve. And because of that firmer stroke you should also notice the cueball will have the same spin off the rail. If you don't quite get the results you're looking for still, I'd work on your stroke.

Not saying this at you, but I've seen enough people playing with Revo shafts that I would consider 'B' players that still just smack the ball rather than stroking it. Low deflection shafts don't fix bad fundamentals.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

I think it is also, but the knowledge that must be amazed is amazing! I suppose all professionals can hit the ball as hard as they want and pocket the ball with huge massive English. I suppose practice and even more practice.

My question regarding low deflection shafts is if you still have to know how much the ball will squirt to avoid a miss, does having to compensate half a ball versus 6 inches with a traditional shaft really make pocketing balls with english easier?

Does missing by less warrant the claims about easier aiming with english?

Miss by an inch, miss by a mile. You still have to know what the shaft is going to do.

Do ld shafts cause the ball to deflect more consistently?

 

[Black-Balled]

I think it is also, but the knowledge that must be amazed is amazing! I suppose all professionals can hit the ball as hard as they want and pocket the ball with huge massive English. I suppose practice and even more practice.

Eeeeyep.

Can't learn how to play pool by computer.

 

[Bobkitty]

You're looking for guidance because you've become confused. Low deflection doesn't mean no deflection. And when you're using side spin, if you're using max side spin on full table length shots. You're doing it wrong. Figure out what tip placement means no deflection or swerve for 9'. It should also mean you'll be hitting the cueball firmer to offset the swerve. And because of that firmer stroke you should also notice the cueball will have the same spin off the rail. If you don't quite get the results you're looking for still, I'd work on your stroke.

Not saying this at you, but I've seen enough people playing with Revo shafts that I would consider 'B' players that still just smack the ball rather than stroking it. Low deflection shafts don't fix bad fundamentals.

Good points. Not full table shots but 3-5 foot shots and probably using too much side spin and too much speed in my practice. I like your point of finding the shots that have almost zero "deflection" with an amount of speed and stick to those.

 

[Bobkitty]

Eeeeyep.

Can't learn how to play pool by computer.

Nope, the projector/computer will not make up for practice.

 

[Cornerman]

You're looking for guidance because you've become confused. Low deflection doesn't mean no deflection. And when you're using side spin, if you're using max side spin on full table length shots. You're doing it wrong. Figure out what tip placement means no deflection or swerve for 9'. It should also mean you'll be hitting the cueball firmer to offset the swerve. And because of that firmer stroke you should also notice the cueball will have the same spin off the rail. If you don't quite get the results you're looking for still, I'd work on your stroke.

Not saying this at you, but I've seen enough people playing with Revo shafts that I would consider 'B' players that still just smack the ball rather than stroking it. Low deflection shafts don't fix bad fundamentals.

I like this. And I think most players who don't "study squirt" (as many on this board do) just naturally and subconsciously do the blend thing to get the "net zero" effect of spin (squirt, swerve, throw).

I do a lot of english instruction for those that want to consciously adjust, but can't get a handle on it on their own. It's an eye opener for players who never thought about these things, but it's a double-edge sword: too many things to think about until it becomes second nature.


Freddie

 

[Ched]

As much as I like to switch off with 3 or 4 of my favorite cues - this really is a strong point for the "Same cue" proponents. Learning a cue - shaft - tip and putting it together with a consistent stroke and practice is where you see a person move up a few levels in ability.

 

[Chi2dxa]

I have a REVO shaft and supposedly "the deflection" should be less than other LD shafts, but when I drive the CB hard, I still get about 1/2 ball deflection at the 8 foot table length on my 9 foot table up against the end rail. As I am practicing English, the normal easy path or moderate path of the CB into the OB, I can allow for the spin of the CB to drive the OB directly to the pocket. But at harder shots, I have to almost aim at the CB directly into the OB for a direct line shot for a 15 degree bend with inside English because of the "deflection" of the CB. I am looking for some guidance along this subject.

On YouTube look up Jaden Dupree and his cutting a ball in on the rail should give you some measure on deflection.

 

[Bobkitty]

Thanks a lot. I guess it all depends on practice...like everything else.

 

[Bobkitty]

On YouTube look up Jaden Dupree and his cutting a ball in on the rail should give you some measure on deflection.

He has a lot of videos. Do you know the link of the one you are mentioning?

 

[Poolmanis]

Btw. I normally dislike low deflection shafts. Revo is only one I liked so far(tested Bob Jewetts one). Hit feels good and it have just little more deflection(IMO)than some others. Me likes!

 

[Straightpool_99]

You'll get deflection, even with a Revo shaft. It's just the nature of the beast. Also the stroke comments...Sure you can get a lot of action with a smooth, slow stroke, but occationally you'll have to but some speed onto the ball to get it around, then you have to compensate. There is no "stroke" answer for deflection. The game requires you to hit certain shots with speeds and englishes that may give you some deflection or swerve. Even if there was a way to guage the exact amount of english and speed to compensate for a particular length of shot in a conscious calculated way, you are still getting locked into a specific english or speed...That's not how to play the game. Shoot the shot with the english and speed you need. Your subconscious will work out the small details after a while. Learn how much your cue deflects, then compensate for that.

 

[Bob Jewett]

On YouTube look up Jaden Dupree and his cutting a ball in on the rail should give you some measure on deflection.

I'm guessing this is putting the cue ball on the head spot and the object ball frozen to the middle of the foot rail and then cutting the OB in by landing next to it and spinning into it with inside side spin. This was the standard squirt test proposed in the RSB FAQ about 20 years ago.

 

[Matt]

My question regarding low deflection shafts is if you still have to know how much the ball will squirt to avoid a miss, does having to compensate half a ball versus 6 inches with a traditional shaft really make pocketing balls with english easier?

Does missing by less warrant the claims about easier aiming with english?

Miss by an inch, miss by a mile. You still have to know what the shaft is going to do.

Do ld shafts cause the ball to deflect more consistently?

Since the amount of squirt from a particular cue is mostly dependent on the end mass of the cue, any given cue should deflect the ball fairly consistently for a specific tip offset.

The fact that a low-squirt cue causes less cue ball deflection is indeed an advantage, at least on paper: having less deflection to compensate for means that the shooter doesn't have to aim as far off from where they would for a center ball hit and can still pocket the ball (because the pocket is bigger than the ball, there is some margin for error).

The reason I say "on paper" is because there are many more factors involved that players may use to their advantage, perhaps unconsciously. The two most important ones that come to mind are squirt/swerve offset and backhand english. If a player is used to the squirt/swerve offset at various speeds for a particular cue, changing to a cue that has a different amount of squirt (whether higher or lower) will require them to "re-calibrate". Likewise for backhand english; if a player is used to bridging at a particular point and using backhand english to compensate for squirt, they would have to get used to a new pivot point on a different cue.

All of that taken into account, my thinking on "low deflection" cues is that there is some advantage to be had from them, but it is minor enough that you should think of it like any other sporting equipment: the latest and greatest may be technically better, but it's up to the player to decide if that small incremental advantage is worth the money and the adjustment period. If the result is making 1 ball in a 1,000 that you would have otherwise missed, have you got your money's worth? What about 1 in 100?

 

[Straightpool_99]

Since the amount of squirt from a particular cue is mostly dependent on the end mass of the cue, any given cue should deflect the ball fairly consistently for a specific tip offset.

The fact that a low-squirt cue causes less cue ball deflection is indeed an advantage, at least on paper: having less deflection to compensate for means that the shooter doesn't have to aim as far off from where they would for a center ball hit and can still pocket the ball (because the pocket is bigger than the ball, there is some margin for error).

The reason I say "on paper" is because there are many more factors involved that players may use to their advantage, perhaps unconsciously. The two most important ones that come to mind are squirt/swerve offset and backhand english. If a player is used to the squirt/swerve offset at various speeds for a particular cue, changing to a cue that has a different amount of squirt (whether higher or lower) will require them to "re-calibrate". Likewise for backhand english; if a player is used to bridging at a particular point and using backhand english to compensate for squirt, they would have to get used to a new pivot point on a different cue.

All of that taken into account, my thinking on "low deflection" cues is that there is some advantage to be had from them, but it is minor enough that you should think of it like any other sporting equipment: the latest and greatest may be technically better, but it's up to the player to decide if that small incremental advantage is worth the money and the adjustment period. If the result is making 1 ball in a 1,000 that you would have otherwise missed, have you got your money's worth? What about 1 in 100?

I agree with some of this, but not all. If for instance I have an old maple shaft with a huge Ivory ferrule at say 13.5mm diameter, if I'm shooting hard with outside I'm aiming at nothing but air! Of course, I could then use backhand english, but because of the huge deflection the pivot point is so short that I don't even have room to properly stroke the cue. Now I may have to slide the hand back...You see how this will not be a very good thing to do. Probably I'd have to use backhand english AND an offset to avoid having to slide. At least then I can see the actual ball I'm shooting at. Thats a lot of extra variables that are thrown in and it's not at all a subtle difference. You can play great that way, but it would be hard to argue that it's an advantage to do that.

You will notice most modern players using a rather long bridge. There are several reasons for that, but I think that not only does the ld shafts cause this, but also the tighter pockets that need very good aiming. It's easier to aim with a long bridge, especially if you have a near perfect stroke. Long bridges are better used with ld shafts, because they will correspond to the pivot point of those shafts. If you use a high deflection shaft with a long bridge you are at a disadvantage, because even a tiny off center hit may cause a miss. If you are used to having a long bridge it's extremely difficult to change, I know because I tried. Short bridges have other advantages (like accurate cueball striking to name one) but you hardly ever see modern players use one. That goes for snooker as well and in snooker the equipment hasn't changed (at least not the cues)...Carom players do use shorter bridges, because they are usually more concerned with cueball striking. But precision potting games have maybe 99% of the top players using long bridges.

 

[Matt]

I agree with some of this, but not all. If for instance I have an old maple shaft with a huge Ivory ferrule at say 13.5mm diameter, if I'm shooting hard with outside I'm aiming at nothing but air! Of course, I could then use backhand english, but because of the huge deflection the pivot point is so short that I don't even have room to properly stroke the cue. Now I may have to slide the hand back...You see how this will not be a very good thing to do. Probably I'd have to use backhand english AND an offset to avoid having to slide. At least then I can see the actual ball I'm shooting at. Thats a lot of extra variables that are thrown in and it's not at all a subtle difference. You can play great that way, but it would be hard to argue that it's an advantage to do that.

You will notice most modern players using a rather long bridge. There are several reasons for that, but I think that not only does the ld shafts cause this, but also the tighter pockets that need very good aiming. It's easier to aim with a long bridge, especially if you have a near perfect stroke. Long bridges are better used with ld shafts, because they will correspond to the pivot point of those shafts. If you are used to having a long bridge it's extremely difficult to change, I know because I tried. Short bridges have other advantages (like accurate cueball striking to name one) but you hardly ever see modern players use one. That goes for snooker as well and in snooker the equipment hasn't changed (at least not the cues)...Carom players do use shorter bridges, because they are usually more concerned with cueball striking. But precision potting games have maybe 99% of the top players using long bridges.

I'm not sure which of my points this contends with. The player who has been shooting with a giant, heavy ferrule for their entire life would definitely have an adjustment period if they jumped to a LD shaft, but would probably be better off in the long run. Based on your description, even switching to a modern non-LD shaft/ferrule would be an improvement.

I also prefer the longer bridge that tends to coincide better with the LD pivot point. I've also played with an LD shaft since my second pool cue, so I can't really say if that affected my natural bridge length or just happened to work well with it. Snooker cues have a much smaller tip diameter, so they are low-squirt compared to a pool cues, but the balls are also smaller, so I'm not sure if it works out to less squirt or not. I do know that the few times I have played snooker with a pool cue (even an LD one), it's been noticeably harder to make a ball than it was with a snooker cue.

In any case, I generally recommend that beginning pool players use a LD shaft as soon as it's financially reasonable for them if they intend to play competitively. For players that are just showing up to league nights to play their match and hang out, it may not be worth the investment. For players that are already competitive with a regular shaft that they have had years to get accustomed to, switching to an LD shaft means spending money to buy something that is probably going to throw them off their game in the short term for a small long term gain, so it's not as clear-cut a decision.