Test Results - Website

[drivermaker]

In the latest Billiards Digest, there's a full page ad for a website that sells products and supplies over the internet, www.platinumbilliards.com
They also do their own robot testing on different shafts, cues, and chalk. Three questions which they answer are: which break cue is fastest? which shaft deflects least? which chalk works best? I'm glad they did the chalk test because there will no longer be a need to fill two pages of posts to answer THAT earth shaking dilemma again. The shaft deflection test was interesting because with all of the arguing that goes on between AZ and other newsgroups and forums regarding a Predator and all other shafts, there doesn't seem to be the monumental differences that claims are leading everyone to fall victim to. The Predator does have the lowest deflection numbers, but they're measuered in mm, not inches or entire ball diameter amounts as I've seen in some claims. Based on the small number of mm, it isn't something that means a whole hell of a lot once you develop feel and a sense of what you're doing with any shaft, especially if you use backhand english anyway. Personally, I use a Joss shaft on my 5/16x14 cues because I like the accuracy, action, and feel that I get. According to the test, the Joss shaft is right there among the lowest deflecting Predators. It doesn't show up that way on the chart because the Joss was being tested with a quarter radius, but a dime radius reduces deflection over a quarter by 10% which would have it down there among the best, and you still get great feel with a normal shaft as opposed to the light hollowed out Predator. I'd like to see some discussion about the break cue test, I still feel that the Sledgehammer out performs everything else out there, but then again, I guess that might depend on how much speed and accuracy an individual player can generate on their own.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The shaft deflection test was interesting because with all of the arguing that goes on between AZ and other newsgroups and forums regarding a Predator and all other shafts, there doesn't seem to be the monumental differences that claims are leading everyone to fall victim to. The Predator does have the lowest deflection numbers, but they're measuered in mm, not inches or entire ball diameter amounts as I've seen in some claims.

Well, with extreme english and a squirty shaft, you have to aim more than a ball off in six diamonds to compensate for squirt. There is one playing cue listed as having 45mm of squirt in four diamonds, or 67mm of squirt in six diamonds. That's more than the diameter of a pool ball which is 57mm.

Perhaps more important is the difference between shafts. The numbers given do not agree very well with my experience, which is that squirt varies by more than a factor of two among sticks. The variation shown on that page is only 30% between playing sticks (and excluding break sticks). A greater-than-2 variation has also been reported by other people who have measured pivot points.

 

[drivermaker]

Well, with extreme english and a squirty shaft, you have to aim more than a ball off in six diamonds to compensate for squirt. There is one playing cue listed as having 45mm of squirt in four diamonds, or 67mm of squirt in six diamonds. That's more than the diameter of a pool ball which is 57mm.

Perhaps more important is the difference between shafts. The numbers given do not agree very well with my experience, which is that squirt varies by more than a factor of two among sticks. The variation shown on that page is only 30% between playing sticks (and excluding break sticks). A greater-than-2 variation has also been reported by other people who have measured pivot points.

I should have been more specific in my response regarding the diameter of a pool ball, meaning that you would have that difference between a Predator and an average cue from that distance, which has been a claim from some, not the total amount for a given cue. As the chart illustrated, a Predator is still getting in the mid to high 30's mm range of deflection for 6-12mm of offset. The difference in mm between a Predator and let's say a Joss with a dime radius is miniscule. What is the scientific measurement for a millimeter...two pubes? Unfortunately, a number of naive players fall for the ads and assume that a Predator has zero deflection, which isn't even close to true. And Bob, tell me what moron would shoot a shot from six diamonds with the most extreme english that you could use before miscuing and with warp speed, high squirt cue or not? The measurement of pivot points is a calculation that's done by hand and can vary from one individual to the next and one stroke to the next and not necessarily reliable and is the the highlight of most conversations by all of your Ph.D. buddies and psuedo-intellectuals over at RSB. I'd be curious to know how much calculation Keith McCready did on the subject before winning this weekend or any other time in his life.

 

[Bob Jewett]

And Bob, tell me what moron would shoot a shot from six diamonds with the most extreme english that you could use before miscuing and with warp speed, high squirt cue or not?...

I think that the warp speed is not a factor, since I'm one of those who believe that squirt angle is not affected by speed.

There are shots especially at one pocket that seem to work best with maximum side, and your aiming line will change up to nearly a ball depending on the shaft. If you are adapted to your shaft, the shot is possible; if not, the shot will end in disaster. An example: put a ball frozen to the long cushion a diamond from your opponent's pocket. Take the cue ball behind the line near that same long rail. Bank the ball cross corner. I think this shot works best with a lot of outside english, and you clearly have to get an accurate hit.

 

[drivermaker]

I think that the warp speed is not a factor, since I'm one of those who believe that squirt angle is not affected by speed.
An example: put a ball frozen to the long cushion a diamond from your opponent's pocket. Take the cue ball behind the line near that same long rail. Bank the ball cross corner. I think this shot works best with a lot of outside english, and you clearly have to get an accurate hit.

An accurate hit on any shot is important, but I guess Glenn "Piggy Banks" Rogers didn't tell us ALL of his secrets to banking in his article, because I never saw one thing mentioned in there about the importance of having a Predator or lowest deflection cue possible to pull off his shots. Since you're on the BD staff, do you think you can have him do a follow up to his secrets on the importance of low squirt shafts and the art of banking? Apparently, he overlooked it or didn't want to tell everything by throwing us off when he said, "and you can forget about the mirrors and ghost tables and drawing criss-crossing lines in your brain that look like high school geometry proofs".

 

[Bob Jewett]

... because I never saw one thing mentioned in there about the importance of having a Predator or lowest deflection cue possible to pull off his shots.

And I certainly never said that you had to have a low squirt (deflection is a bad word to use in this context for many reasons) shaft to play well. I know lots of pretty good players who shoot with shafts I could not use because they squirt more than the shaft I'm used to. However, I do think it helps beginners to learn to use side spin if the required aiming adjustments are as small as possible.

As for the anti-geometry comment, some people take to book learning and analysis, and some prefer to go purely by feel. Some people like to understand what they're doing, and others simply do. Is one way better then the other?

 

[cuttyshark]

Does a shorter bridge affect deflection and is this what the pivot point discussion relates to?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Does a shorter bridge affect deflection and is this what the pivot point discussion relates to?

If you had a very short bridge and it was very, very tight, you might increase squirt slightly, but skin is too soft to participate much in the actual tip-to-ball contact.

Pivot point refers to the bridge length at which you could set up aim for a no-english shot, and then pivot about your bridge, keeping your bridge still, to get a certain amount of side spin, and then shoot, and still hit the object ball where you had originally aimed. The idea is that the angle you pivot through to get over on the side of the cue ball for side spin will cancel the squirt angle.

It seems that each stick has a pivot point that describes how much squirt it has. Some sticks have been reported that squirt more depending on how the grain is aligned (I think Black Dot shafts are like this) and in that case the pivot point would depend on the rotation of the stick and might be described as a range rather than a point.

If your bridge happens to be at the pivot point for your stick, you can use the "aim and pivot" or "backhand engligh" method of squirt compensation: aim center ball, pivot over for side spin, take a couple of strokes along the new line, and then shoot. I think some players have adopted this method unconsciously.

 

[drivermaker]

As for the anti-geometry comment, some people take to book learning and analysis, and some prefer to go purely by feel. Some people like to understand what they're doing, and others simply do. Is one way better then the other?

Probably not, as long as the two different groups don't get entangled very long and try switching over to the other style permenantly. One group would go stark raving mad with too much information and the other would die from anorexia of the brain. Historically speaking, which style do you think has dominated the hall of famers, the tournament greats, and top money players up to this point? And by the way, I don't think all feel players don't know or don't understand what they're doing, they absolutely do. They just don't know it from a physics and geometry style of learning, so have they missed the boat?

 

[pooljunkie73]

Probably not, as long as the two different groups don't get entangled very long and try switching over to the other style permenantly. One group would go stark raving mad with too much information and the other would die from anorexia of the brain. Historically speaking, which style do you think has dominated the hall of famers, the tournament greats, and top money players up to this point?

I would bet 99.9% of them play by feel.

Kent Mc.

 

[Cue of Fury]

In the best Yoda voice I can muster, "Feel the force flow though you!"

 

[drivermaker]

I would bet 99.9% of them play by feel.
Kent Mc.

I might consider taking that bet, I have a feeling that you might be off by a tenth of a percent. Another bet that I'll make is their instructors never put a cue with a Predator or other low squirt shaft attached to teach them about spin on the CB when they were beginners either. That SF Billiard Academy must be one high fallootin' place. When the great teachers of the past like Benny "Lugnuts" Bruster, Eddie "Pickles" Kowalski, or Jimmy "Boogers" Battaglia of the Local Back Alley Billiards Academy taught the young beginners, they grabbed a cue off the rack with a cracked ferrule and a mushroomed tip large enough to pry off and put in your salad for their upstarts. When the cue was rolled across the table, if it didn't bounce off onto the floor like a mexican jumping bean due to massive warp, it was deemed a good playable cue. They still taught "WHAT" it takes to make a shot and "HOW" to make it, probably as well as anyone out there, they just didn't waste their time teaching "WHY" the "WHAT" and the "HOW" worked, which is what the scientists are after and allows for great mental masturbation sessions within their ranks of exalted ones and followers. Sure will be interesting to see if the next batch of young players getting fed all of these equations and calculations will blow away the records of the greatest players over the next few decades. Keep writin' those articles Uncle Bob, my curiosity into the future is piqued.

 

[catscradle]

... They still taught "WHAT" it takes to make a shot and "HOW" to make it, probably as well as anyone out there, they just didn't waste their time teaching "WHY" the "WHAT" and the "HOW" worked, which is what the scientists are after and allows for great mental masturbation sessions within their ranks of exalted ones and followers. Sure will be interesting to see if the next batch of young players getting fed all of these equations and calculations will blow away the records of the greatest players over the next few decades. Keep writin' those articles Uncle Bob, my curiosity into the future is piqued.

In the dark ages when I was a budding young psychology student, I was completely enthralled with behaviourism, which in a very small nutshell maintained that what mattered was what effect external stimuli had upon an organism's behaviour, and screw all that concern Jungian's, Freudians, etc. had with the internals of man's thinking. I still agree with it to this day for that matter.
The point being that what you present is the pool shooting equivalent of that, the physics of squirt, deflection, whatever don't matter at all, what matters is what happens to the cueball and object ball when you do such and such. I couldn't agree with you more, what matters is the behaviour of the pool balls no matter if it takes a side-arm swing like Keith McCready or picture perfect form like Ralf Souquet. Most of us can play pool in such a calculated manner we just have to play by "feel". Hell I can even understand how to figure out the pivot point of my cue, and I'm no dummy (or am I).

 

[Williebetmore]

When the great teachers of the past like Benny "Lugnuts" Bruster, Eddie "Pickles" Kowalski, or Jimmy "Boogers" Battaglia of the Local Back Alley Billiards Academy taught the young beginners,

Of course it is interesting to consider the possibility that had Lugnuts, Pickles, and Boogers had scientific training they could have played just as well (if not better). Perhaps with better coaching and a little studying they could have learned just as well in a lot less time (and I mean perhaps 2 hours a day). Perhaps they could even have held day jobs (not that they would have wanted to), or perhaps even had a serious relationship (I mean with a female, not a whiskey bottle) and still had some time for top flight pool. Just a thought.

 

[Cue of Fury]

You don't need a fancy low-deflection shaft. You just gotta be a student of human moves. All the greats that I know, to a man, were students of human moves. - Eddie Felson

 

[drivermaker]

Of course it is interesting to consider the possibility that had Lugnuts, Pickles, and Boogers had scientific training they could have played just as well (if not better). Perhaps with better coaching and a little studying they could have learned just as well in a lot less time (and I mean perhaps 2 hours a day). Perhaps they could even have held day jobs (not that they would have wanted to), or perhaps even had a serious relationship (I mean with a female, not a whiskey bottle) and still had some time for top flight pool. Just a thought.

There you go with that stinkin'-thinkin' again Willie....a thought in the wrong direction.

 

[Williebetmore]

There you go with that stinkin'-thinkin' again Willie....a thought in the wrong direction.

Yeah, you are probably right, what was I thinking - a day job is really not compatible with the Luddite pool philosophy. I forget who said it (it might be in Grady's book; I would look it up, but I would be accused of reading) - "There is no secret to great pool - just quit your job, get a divorce, and learn to live on little money." Maybe the SF billiards guys offer an alternative pathway. Just another thought (that's 2 in one day, I'm not sure what my quota is). I suppose if there was any money in pool Nick Bollitieri would already have a live-in pool school for precocious kids, and we would know if champions can be developed scientifically.

 

[drivermaker]

Yeah, you are probably right, what was I thinking - a day job is really not compatible with the Luddite pool philosophy. I forget who said it (it might be in Grady's book; I would look it up, but I would be accused of reading) - "There is no secret to great pool - just quit your job, get a divorce, and learn to live on little money." Maybe the SF billiards guys offer an alternative pathway. Just another thought (that's 2 in one day, I'm not sure what my quota is). I suppose if there was any money in pool Nick Bollitieri would already have a live-in pool school for precocious kids, and we would know if champions can be developed scientifically.

Now...that's a better thought and possibly the key ingredient was found. You get two thoughts for the day, the first one is automatically thrown out and the second one is o.k., that is unless you get out of bed on the other side and put the opposite sock on first instead of the usual one. There really is no money in pool unless you're a hell of a gambler or stakehorse and your name is Johnny, Efren, Earl, or Francisco. Hell, George San Souci just packed it in for good and is going into full time poker, not to say that it'll produce a windfall but his chances for a big payday are a lot greater.

 

[rocky]

, a Predator is still getting in the mid to high 30's mm range of deflection for 6-12mm of offset. The difference in mm between a Predator and let's say a Joss with a dime radius is miniscule. What is the scientific measurement for a millimeter....

The difference was 10mm at breaking distance ( four diamonds ) that is a centimeter for all of the metric challenged people or almost half an inch, that is more than enough throw off your shot and cause you to miss. Sure you can shoot with a regular shaft and over the years learn to compensate for " sqirt" but if there is a product out there that is going to increase the odds of you making a diffincult shot, why not use it? They say proof is in the pudding, there is a whole webb sight full of it.

 

[9balldiva]

The difference was 10mm at breaking distance ( four diamonds ) that is a centimeter for all of the metric challenged people or almost half an inch, that is more than enough throw off your shot and cause you to miss. Sure you can shoot with a regular shaft and over the years learn to compensate for " sqirt" but if there is a product out there that is going to increase the odds of you making a diffincult shot, why not use it? They say proof is in the pudding, there is a whole webb sight full of it.

I agree!! If you play with a high deflection cue fr a while and get used to it, then try playing with a Predator...I don't think you'll make all the shots you normally would...why, because it has a lower deflection. It's easily noticed if you aren't used to shooting with it. All those who don't believe the "garbage" Predator advertises lacks what we call common sense. It's proven, and like you said, there's a whole website to show it. I'll keep my Predator, thanks!!!