What is wrong with deflection?

[hang-the-9]

I have been playing since I was 5, and had just about every shaft there is out there at one time or another. Truth is, low deflection shafts are for the most part a sales ploy. Now, scientifically speaking, where machines are aligning shots hitting the cue ball on the exact same spot time and time again, there has been some very slight success at lowering deflection with the predator shaft and a few of the low deflection shafts out there you pay a pretty penny for, but the amount of success is negligible at best.

Here is what the low deflection shafts bring to the table if we were being honest: less vibration felt at impact with the cue ball. Other than that, if you think you are deflecting less, it might also give you more confidence... sort of like the placebo sugar pill effect so to speak.

Deflection is just part of the game. I don’t even compensate for it any more, my brain just sort of takes over and aims it the way it needs to be aimed. I don’t think there is a way of cheating or gaining an edge over just simply lining up a shot and practicing it over and over again, and think I could have saved myself a lot of money if I would have just realized a lot earlier in life that there is no substitute for putting the time in.

You are very wrong about low deflections shafts not doing anything. They do, have been shown to do what they do, there is no question. It is also easy to see what they do, just hand a guy used to deflection or vice versa a shaft on the other end of the spectrum and see how they shoot.

It's like the earth being round. Some people still like to talk about how they don't see a curve, how this and than thing showed it's flat, but they are wrong. When I aim with spin with my LD shafts and with a standard shaft, there are times that I need to change my aim by almost a full ball to compensate. That is no small adjustment.

The thing that a lot of players still like to say that is wrong is that using one shaft or another will be "best" or "will make you play better". It may, and I have seen it. Someone that was a pretty new player had issues making balls, every time I notices he was trying to use spin. I showed him some examples of how the cueball reacts with off center hits, he bought an LD shaft a week later, improved 2-3 balls in a few months of play with it. On the other hand, someone that is already a top player that learned to play with a standard shaft may never play as good with an LD shaft.

I think, from watching a lot of players, that the earlier you start with an LD shaft, the more advantages you will have when learning to play since you won't be randomly missing spin shots and have no idea why. Once you are really advanced, say at A level or more, moving to an LD shaft is as likely to hurt your game as help you, even if you spend a lot of practice time with it.

 

[OldOrvis]

Ill help

Anyone saying that LD and Standard arent really that different, get a REVO. and if you cant tell a difference you need to take up a new game lol

And SVB played with standard forever and beat everyone, and he went to LD and he said hes making balls better now. LD is to help just like new Irons or drivers

 

[dr_dave]

Anyone saying that LD and Standard arent really that different, get a REVO. and if you cant tell a difference you need to take up a new game lol

You still need to adjust your aim for different types of shots with both type of shafts, you just need to adjust less with an LD shaft. LD shafts definitely have advantages, but they also have disadvantages for some people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ShootingArts]

mass is like a person's soul?

When I read these threads it seems that "mass" is like a person's soul. It is floating around but not firmly attached to ball or stick. Interesting talk about what mass does but seemingly it doesn't affect what cue ball or stick does.

Having competed in many things I have seen the deal of situational physics over and over. Physics don't apply to what a person is arguing about. Far more likely than the person finding a flaw in the laws of physics, they are either not applying the correct laws of physics or applying them incorrectly.

(quoting Newton's three laws, I didn't verify the accuracy of the wording.)
Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

Newton's second law of motion pertains to the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced. The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object.

The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(end included text)

We can't get away from these laws being basically correct. However, we can ignore some variables that come into play or add variables that don't exist. That allows room for argument. For example, it is easy to read the third law and conclude perpetual motion is possible. However, the third law isn't correct as stated here. For every force there is an equal and opposite combination of forces. Heat and sound are both types of energy. When two balls collide with a center ball hit these things, the deformation of each ball and more have to be deducted from the energy transferred to the second ball so 100% of the motion of a cue ball will never be transferred to an object ball. With a fixture to measure such things, the combined distance a cue ball and object ball travels when struck by the cue ball will never equal the distance that the same cue ball rolling the same speed would travel unimpeded. Far easier to prove this by testing than by trying to calculate all of the variables.

By leaving out some of the variables and purely arguing theoretical motions we can reach erroneous conclusions and then scream loudly that the basic laws of physics prove us correct! Hundreds of posts arguing that Newton's third law of physics proved me wrong on another forum. The people arguing with me were unable to comprehend the function of an inclined plane and had repealed the law of gravity. A year or two after I left that forum somebody made me aware of a long thread my name featured prominently in. Now the people were saying I was wrong not in my basic assertion but in the distance one object would travel which was entirely dependent on the angle of the inclined plane and friction which wasn't stated anywhere. With 155 posts already in the thread when I was made aware of it I was content to let the people argue among themselves. I am pretty sure gravity still works and so do inclined planes.

Getting back to pool, Low Deflection Shafts are really high deflection shafts which result in less deflection of the cue ball. Starting off from this gross misnomer things are sure to go downhill!

Hu

 

[OldOrvis]

You still need to adjust your aim for different types of shots with both type of shafts, you just need to adjust less with an LD shaft.


So with less adjustments comes less error, the more you compensate the more room for error. I am just saying the REVO takes that away you just point and shoot, I still miss im not a pro but it has made a world of difference with spin shots and is way more accurate

 

[MattPoland]

SNIP



Getting back to pool, Low Deflection Shafts are really high deflection shafts which result in less deflection of the cue ball. Starting off from this gross misnomer things are sure to go downhill!



Hu

Here’s where perusing the information from Dr Dave has led me to believe otherwise.

Here’s my thought experimentp. Imagine steel rod on a guided track acting like a cue stick striking a sphere off center. Imagine the steel rod is rigid enough to not flex and the guided track is supported such that it won’t redirect the rod’s path upon impact. Have it strike the sphere in two scenarios. One is with a fully solid steel rod. The other is with a rod hollowed out at the end (still perfectly rigid). The difference in mass near the point of contact will transfer more lateral force into the sphere in scenario 1 than in scenario 2, even though no “shaft deflection” has occurred. It’s purely the mass difference that matters.

Switch that to a pool scenario. I think the science as presented by Dr Dave (if I’m correct) is that the effect produced by end mass difference described above is the cause of low squirt. The shaft may redirect after impact, but that’s at most a side effect and not a significant contributing factor to the magnitude of squirt generated.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[garczar]

C'mon folks. Seriously?? We gonna beat this horse to death?? Less end-mass equals: 1.More shaft deflection thus leading to : 2. Less cue-ball deflection. If you like LD, great. If not, great. My current shaft, which i just found, is a Mezz HybridPro. Its 12.85mm, stiff as all get out and "somewhat" LD. It has less deflection than a stock Schon shaft but feels just as good. ALL shafts have deflection to some degree. Pick the flavor you like and go hit a zillion balls. Just my $.02 on this, nothing more.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Low Deflection Shafts are really high deflection shafts which result in less deflection of the cue ball.

Low CB deflection shafts don't deflect more; it just takes less energy to deflect them the same distance.

Maybe "low resistance"?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

..........