Too little deflection?
- Thread starter Catalin
- Start date
Thank you for confirming 
I think this is a good example of one if the very few shots that LD is an advantage.
By that same idea, this one shot isnt why LD shafts are viewed as advantageous. There are a handful of other shots that you’d rather shoot with an HD shaft (to avoid a double hit).
I think there are a couple of situations in which LD shafts can be disadvantageous, but before going into that, I'd like to clarify some terminology. I know a lot of the folks on here know this already, but I think it's worth restating to avoid confusion... The term "low deflection shaft" is a misnomer. It's a marketing term to describe a shaft that causes less cue ball squirt, which is the difference between the direction the cue tip is travelling and the direction that the cue ball initially travels when using side spin (english). In order to reduce that squirt, the shaft is made such that it has a lower endmass, which is the term describing the mass of the last few inches of the shaft, near the tip. With that lowered endmass, the tip of the cue actually "deflects" more easily, resulting the less cue ball squirt. Because of this naming contradiction, you will often see the term "low squirt shaft" used instead of LD. I like to take if a step further and call them low endmass shafts since that describes the actual construction rather than the effect, but I suppose that's why I'm not in marketing.
So, when is a traditional, higher endmass cue useful? I can think of two situations: jumping a ball and using backhand english.
The argument for jumping a ball (if you insist on doing so) with a traditional cue, or better yet, a jump cue, is that the higher endmass is necessary to generate the force down into the cloth/slate to cause the cue ball to rebound sufficiently. There's probably more to it than that, but suffice to say that jumping a ball with a low endmass cue is quite difficult.
The second situation, using backhand english, probably applies to more people than are actually aware of it. The general principle of backhand english is this: if your bridge is at the pivot point of your cue during contact, any amount of english that you apply by simply moving your back (grip) hand side to side will result in the same initial cue ball path as if you were to hit center ball. There are physics proofs to back up the existence of such a point, but the best way to actually find it on your cue is through experimentation. One result of lowering a cue's endmass is that it causes the pivot point to move back, towards the butt of the cue, meaning that you would need to use a longer bridge to take advantage of backhand english. The reason I say this probably applies to more people than are actually aware of backhand english is this: while you can consciously use backhand english to compensate for squirt, it also automatically compensates for side to side stroke errors, provided that your bridge is naturally at the pivot point.
Now for some anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth... One of our very talented local players has always played with a standard shaft; not because he has anything against the newer technology, just because that's what he learned with. Every time he's tried out someone else's cue with a low squirt shaft, he starts rattling, and even entirely missing, shots when he's using a bunch of english. One day, when he was trying out my (low squirt) cue, he's running into the same issue. I have him move his bridge back a few inches, and voila, back to center pocket. He's since moved away, so I don't know if he ever got comfortable with the adjustment to switch to a low squirt shaft, but it was enough to get him to stop wondering how anyone could ever shoot with one.
So, when is a traditional, higher endmass cue useful? I can think of two situations: jumping a ball and using backhand english.
The argument for jumping a ball (if you insist on doing so) with a traditional cue, or better yet, a jump cue, is that the higher endmass is necessary to generate the force down into the cloth/slate to cause the cue ball to rebound sufficiently. There's probably more to it than that, but suffice to say that jumping a ball with a low endmass cue is quite difficult.
The second situation, using backhand english, probably applies to more people than are actually aware of it. The general principle of backhand english is this: if your bridge is at the pivot point of your cue during contact, any amount of english that you apply by simply moving your back (grip) hand side to side will result in the same initial cue ball path as if you were to hit center ball. There are physics proofs to back up the existence of such a point, but the best way to actually find it on your cue is through experimentation. One result of lowering a cue's endmass is that it causes the pivot point to move back, towards the butt of the cue, meaning that you would need to use a longer bridge to take advantage of backhand english. The reason I say this probably applies to more people than are actually aware of backhand english is this: while you can consciously use backhand english to compensate for squirt, it also automatically compensates for side to side stroke errors, provided that your bridge is naturally at the pivot point.
Now for some anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it's worth... One of our very talented local players has always played with a standard shaft; not because he has anything against the newer technology, just because that's what he learned with. Every time he's tried out someone else's cue with a low squirt shaft, he starts rattling, and even entirely missing, shots when he's using a bunch of english. One day, when he was trying out my (low squirt) cue, he's running into the same issue. I have him move his bridge back a few inches, and voila, back to center pocket. He's since moved away, so I don't know if he ever got comfortable with the adjustment to switch to a low squirt shaft, but it was enough to get him to stop wondering how anyone could ever shoot with one.
Unless I’m missing something (could an HD shaft possibly apply more english?), avoiding that sidepocket scratch is due entirely to ball-contact/english-transfer ‘throw’, the degree of which largely depends on the condition of the balls.
I understand your intent of phrasing it that way.
To say a standard HD shaft CAN'T make that shot is simply
not true.
You can also adjust your aim and use the pivot to avoid elevating the cue.
Pretty sure cornerman will vouch for that option as well.
Not everyone is familiar or comfortable doing that.
I'm getting used to a standard maple shaft with a tomahawk ferrule on it. Very high quality material, but lacks the firm impact feeling of lbm. So much less squirt. I'm actually having to make serious adjustments. The LD properties have caused me to look at certain shots and consider different ways to approach them as well.
I tried your example shot with 3 cues.
A house cue - HD.
My sneaky with tomahawk ferrule - Med/Low deflection.
A friend's steel jointed cue with original Predator 314.2 - LD.
Made the shot with each cue but, admittedly only pocketed the ball first try with the predator.
After adjusting, I made the shot with my sneaky on second attempt by finding the aiming point and pivoting the cue appx 6”. The house cue took me 4 attempts to finally pocket the ball; using standard aiming and shooting jacked up over the 8.
The deflection with the house cue was comical levels on the 1st try, and it made the pivot feel alien. That's why I ended up shooting over the ball.
All resulted in shape on the 8 into the lower left pocket with a firm stroke.
If a person learns to play with a laminated LD shaft then they might be better off not knowing about all the calculation and torment us tree branch shooters must endure.:thumbup:
Last edited: