Here’s a demonstration of a similar technique applied to compare normal and swoop strokes:
NV F.2 - Swoop Stroke Experiment - Can swooping create extra spin on the cue ball?
BTW, the answer is: No.
Regards,
Dave
What is wrong with deflection?
- Thread starter Matt_24
- Start date
NV F.2 - Swoop Stroke Experiment - Can swooping create extra spin on the cue ball?
BTW, the answer is: No.
Regards,
Dave
Going to call shenanigans on all accounts. As somebody said before, its hard for retired/near retired professionals to use equipment that wasn't available to them in the first 20-30 years of their career. If you were Efren and new equipment came out while you were arguably the greatest player of all time, do you think you would be like, "I'm currently the best player in the world, now's the time to completely change my equipment and overhaul my shot making process."
Its like saying old golf pros hate steel clubs because they played with strictly wooden clubs (steel clubs weren't created when they played golf".
To your first point, i don't know what ld shafts you are playing with, but my revo (lowest deflection cue on the market) is the least forgiving cue i, and probably everybody else, has ever seen, and people across the street at Mcdonald's know when i mishit a cueball.
As far as your "wide consensus among skilled players".... Unless Shane Van Boening, Kaci, half of Asia, Darren Appleton, Josh Filer, Chris Melling, Jeremy Sossei, Jayson Shaw and probably most pros that i can't think of just off the top of my head have no idea what they are doing, then i think you are definitely NOT on to something. Most of those players also use carbon fiber as an FYI.
I would damn near guarantee that low deflection, if not the same spin, produces more spin than a standard shaft, so i think you are correct by stating that its all in your head. I have never once picked up any cue that could outdraw my predator, nevermind my new revo. I would take my revo with a medium kamui over any other cue with a soft kamui and outperform spin wise, fairly confident in that. The only non-placebo boost in spin i have ever encountered, aside from changing tips, is switching from wood to carbon fiber. I'm 90% sure that something about carbon fiber transfers more energy with less deflection to the cue ball.
So yeah, i think i'll stick with Shane, Kaci, Melling and Shaw on this debate. Leaves me to wonder about your "consensus of skilled players". Its fine to have a bias, but don't pass it off as factual or backed up by anything other than your preference.
Last edited:
There was a time when nearly every U.S. Pro player was playing with a Meucci.
That's a fact.
Was it because Meucci was the best?
No, it's because Bob paid them all to play with his cues.
Predator pays a lot of players to play with their cues and shafts. Today, relatively speaking, is the same or worse than the past in that players are poor and they will take anything from anyone.
The argument that they played with a particular cue for their whole career doesn't hold water.
Earl did not start off or earn his skills with a Cuetec. But he sure learned to play with one well and in a hurry.
Efren played with a Meucci also. He didn't start on one. And he didn't finish with one either.
Pros are FAR less equipment dependent than amateurs. Amateurs have much more of an "excalibur syndrome" or mentality that equipment can help improve their game. Pros are much more aware of what really matters in their game, and they focus in on that.
Pros also adapt to new equipment faster, as they as a whole, lack or disregard the equipment factor as a mental block. In other words, they don't let it interfere with their game as much as an amateur whose game falls to pieces with any changes. They know their stroke is their stroke, and that's that.
That said, GIVEN the CHOICE ...these players did not play with a LD shaft or a Predator.
At this level, any tiny edge that anything could provide to a player would be taken advantage of. These players obviously did not feel LD gave them any edge or advantage. They all experimented. Earl, Buddy, Efren and all of them. They tried LD, they tried phenolic tipped break cues, and all the fads or innovations.
This is not the case of an old dog can't learn new tricks.
That's a fact.
Was it because Meucci was the best?
No, it's because Bob paid them all to play with his cues.
Predator pays a lot of players to play with their cues and shafts. Today, relatively speaking, is the same or worse than the past in that players are poor and they will take anything from anyone.
The argument that they played with a particular cue for their whole career doesn't hold water.
Earl did not start off or earn his skills with a Cuetec. But he sure learned to play with one well and in a hurry.
Efren played with a Meucci also. He didn't start on one. And he didn't finish with one either.
Pros are FAR less equipment dependent than amateurs. Amateurs have much more of an "excalibur syndrome" or mentality that equipment can help improve their game. Pros are much more aware of what really matters in their game, and they focus in on that.
Pros also adapt to new equipment faster, as they as a whole, lack or disregard the equipment factor as a mental block. In other words, they don't let it interfere with their game as much as an amateur whose game falls to pieces with any changes. They know their stroke is their stroke, and that's that.
That said, GIVEN the CHOICE ...these players did not play with a LD shaft or a Predator.
At this level, any tiny edge that anything could provide to a player would be taken advantage of. These players obviously did not feel LD gave them any edge or advantage. They all experimented. Earl, Buddy, Efren and all of them. They tried LD, they tried phenolic tipped break cues, and all the fads or innovations.
This is not the case of an old dog can't learn new tricks.
You do a lot of speaking for the pros. What is your pool resume? If i asked Mike Deschaine, would he know of Grilled Cheese's ability ro runout in 9 ball?
The "excalibur" effect is true for any player of any game. Many sports are mental games where some confidence is everything. Golf is a great example where Phil or Rory will get a brand new putter and they shoot -22 over four days and take home the bacon mostly due to their putting percentages being wildly high, usually temporary. Those tournaments are usually shelling out several million dollars as well, and pool is very similar to golf in my opinion. I play pool well and i'm a shit golfer with a 15ish handicap but golf and pool are very similar with your swing/stroke fluctuations. Some days i hit every green and three put. Some days i can't hit straight to save my life but can chip on and sink 14 footers. Similar to being in stroke in pool, sometimes you can get on the table and one stroke everything while running racks in front of an audience, other days the smallest cuts look difficult. Confidence in your game and your equipment is important no matter who you are, so i wouldn't go making assumptions about things you don't know about.
Also just an FYI, only half of the pros i mentioned play with predator specifically. Several are non sponsored, shane plays with the cf cuetec and then Shaw i believe uses a Meucci low deflection. I wasn't so much raving for predator as i am talking about most of the pros using low deflection cues, although i do love predator cues myself.
The "excalibur" effect is true for any player of any game. Many sports are mental games where some confidence is everything. Golf is a great example where Phil or Rory will get a brand new putter and they shoot -22 over four days and take home the bacon mostly due to their putting percentages being wildly high, usually temporary. Those tournaments are usually shelling out several million dollars as well, and pool is very similar to golf in my opinion. I play pool well and i'm a shit golfer with a 15ish handicap but golf and pool are very similar with your swing/stroke fluctuations. Some days i hit every green and three put. Some days i can't hit straight to save my life but can chip on and sink 14 footers. Similar to being in stroke in pool, sometimes you can get on the table and one stroke everything while running racks in front of an audience, other days the smallest cuts look difficult. Confidence in your game and your equipment is important no matter who you are, so i wouldn't go making assumptions about things you don't know about.
Also just an FYI, only half of the pros i mentioned play with predator specifically. Several are non sponsored, shane plays with the cf cuetec and then Shaw i believe uses a Meucci low deflection. I wasn't so much raving for predator as i am talking about most of the pros using low deflection cues, although i do love predator cues myself.
devoncloud
New member
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.
Let me quote the great Earl Strickland who was at my hall during the summer giving lessons to a guy from the great white north.
I was checking out and hitting some balls with Earls very heavy, extremely long Gulyassee cue. I who've been a 3+ decade Meucci player asked Earl about his cue selection over the years. He stated "I'm glad I played with Meucci's when I was younger, I loved them and obviously learned to deal with all that deflection. Now that I play with a straighter, stiffer hitting Gulyassee cue or any LD cue I can easily adjust to the amount of deflection being implied because I've played for years now with cues that were both extremes."
That really made me think about what he just said to me. If you play long enough with any cue, you'll learn to deal with and play well with either high or low deflection shaft, now it's all a matter of preference.
So I began a quest to find a cue that I felt comfortable with and performed better for me, regardless of the cuemaker. I've owned other cues than Meucci's and just recently sold a great Joss that I just couldn't make a ball with. It was stiff and felt completely odd shooting with, well compared to any Meucci I've own anyway.
So in a span of 6 months I acquired about 20 new cues from great names like Schon, Samsara, OB, McDermott, Downey, Pechauer, Philippe, etc. All played pretty well and I slowly began to adjust to these stiffer, lower deflection cues.
Than I hit the holy grail grabbing a mystery cue from Deanoc when I picked up a Tony Guerra cue. I was initially unimpressed with it as it was a plain jane and didn't appeal to me. That was until I got home and started hitting balls with it. It was like an old friend and I can honestly say I shoot significantly more consistent with his cue than any cue out of dozens of different cuemakers. So well that I've put my entire collection up for sale and I'm having Tony make me some of his beautiful unique wood cues. I just grabbed another one brand new and it hits as sweet as the mystery cue and looks incredible.
So to sum my words, there are many great cuemakers out there. A $500 cue can most likely do the job. Anything above that is all eye candy and bragging rights. However if you shop around enough you'll find an exceptional cuemaker who makes the cue that feels like it was designed with you in mind and lets you play like the player you always knew you could be.
Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk Pro
There are some cues that just "click" for you when you pick them up for the first time.
I hit some with a Jim Lee cue with a John Davis blank that felt perfect for me. It had some deflection, but when I shot with it I didn't feel like I was "consciously" having to make any adjustments. I was making balls left and right and the cue ball was going where I wanted it to for position.
It played so well that I was thinking of picking up a Davis blank and having Jim Lee try to duplicate it.
I hit some with a Jim Lee cue with a John Davis blank that felt perfect for me. It had some deflection, but when I shot with it I didn't feel like I was "consciously" having to make any adjustments. I was making balls left and right and the cue ball was going where I wanted it to for position.
It played so well that I was thinking of picking up a Davis blank and having Jim Lee try to duplicate it.
+1...
I play old growth original maple shafts from the cuemaker's cues
I own... nice stiff hit. I think the LD shaft thing is to compensate for
the crappy wood that's being used now.
Full zero deflection? I remember hitting balls with one of those all
aluminum cues.. what a POS, but it didn't deflect!,
IMO, get two really great maple shafts that play similarly, get your
tips where you like them, and don't play anything else.. just get used
to the hit and feel of just those two, and stop switching shafts!
Last edited:
I will tell you what is wrong with deflection.
It is not always reliable or trustworthy. Room conditions, table cloth, pool balls, etc are factors
that are exerted when the cue ball gets struck. Then there is where and how hard to hit the
cue bal since spin and speed are factors. So deflection becomes another variable to consider
when executing a shot & the more variables involved, the harder it is to render the best outcome.
Now everyone heralds Willie's run of 526 and others that have come close. Anyone stringing a big
run has dealt with lots of variables during the run. Today's modern players benefit from better cloths.
rails, and even pool cue building and part of that is low deflection shafts that minimize deflection.
If you can deliver the cue ball in a more straight line instead of shooting more inside or outside the
object ball when allowing for deflection on a long shot, then that is more of a strength than weakness.
I play with original maple shafts and so deflection is a way of life for me. Been playing pool for 57 years
and so I just allow for it but if I had my druthers, less deflection is better than allowing for it.
I'm not going to change at this point in life and so I'll just rest my hat on being stubborn minded since
I still feel that if Willie pocketed >500 balls relying on deflection, then why can't I just run 70-80 balls
using it? Well, I can't but it's not because of any deflection. I'm just too old, broken & also not that good.
Deflection is part of the game but whenever you can minimize it, your pool game should very likely
get a lot better faster than just by sheer practice alone. LD shafts are the future but aren't in mine.
Matt B.
It is not always reliable or trustworthy. Room conditions, table cloth, pool balls, etc are factors
that are exerted when the cue ball gets struck. Then there is where and how hard to hit the
cue bal since spin and speed are factors. So deflection becomes another variable to consider
when executing a shot & the more variables involved, the harder it is to render the best outcome.
Now everyone heralds Willie's run of 526 and others that have come close. Anyone stringing a big
run has dealt with lots of variables during the run. Today's modern players benefit from better cloths.
rails, and even pool cue building and part of that is low deflection shafts that minimize deflection.
If you can deliver the cue ball in a more straight line instead of shooting more inside or outside the
object ball when allowing for deflection on a long shot, then that is more of a strength than weakness.
I play with original maple shafts and so deflection is a way of life for me. Been playing pool for 57 years
and so I just allow for it but if I had my druthers, less deflection is better than allowing for it.
I'm not going to change at this point in life and so I'll just rest my hat on being stubborn minded since
I still feel that if Willie pocketed >500 balls relying on deflection, then why can't I just run 70-80 balls
using it? Well, I can't but it's not because of any deflection. I'm just too old, broken & also not that good.
Deflection is part of the game but whenever you can minimize it, your pool game should very likely
get a lot better faster than just by sheer practice alone. LD shafts are the future but aren't in mine.
Matt B.
Funny
Funny thing, I was thinking about those old aluminum cues earlier today. I bought a couple to be abused on my home table. Put better joints and a $800 price tag on them and people should stand in line to buy them today. Well the joint would have to come apart, but that is all.
Hu
Funny thing, I was thinking about those old aluminum cues earlier today. I bought a couple to be abused on my home table. Put better joints and a $800 price tag on them and people should stand in line to buy them today. Well the joint would have to come apart, but that is all.
Hu
Pseudo-science says deflection is bad so you pay 3x more for shafts.
I have a pretty good memory. Predator was the big name and biggest innovator of LD. The claim was made the Predator generated more spin, more speed/power.
Predator's claims slowly disappeared years ago. Because they were total BS.
The only thing they consistently claim over the years is lower CB deflection which is true. No one argues that.
But at what cost?
Some say that the lower CB deflection comes at no penalty whatsoever. There's no compromises at all. You get all the same speed, spin and power. Free energy!
Well, at least they are down to claiming you lose nothing, as opposed to the past claims that you gained spin, speed and power while deflecting less. Have your cake & eat it!
During the collision between the shaft/tip and CB, because the LD shaft has less end mass - it deflects, to minimize how much the CB deflects - yet, somehow it deflects off the CB more but miraculously is able to impart the same exact energy into the CB.
Ya, I crashed my Honda Civic into a Ford Expedition - the Ford went sliding down the road just as much as if I would have hit it with another Ford Expedition....
Only in the world of shaft technology does the laws of physics change.
Ha! Since classical physics doesn't apply at the atomic level, maybe then we also need a special Quantum Cue Physics to justify how awesome LD is. Quantum Deflection Physics. A way to explain all the strange phenomena (aka BS marketing claims of cue manufacturers)
How do the pseudo-scientists justify this? By claiming that contact is only .001 of a second, so that's the same as all shafts. This is a red herring and contradictory.
The more off center you hit a ball, the more speed/power you're losing relative to forward motion since some of that is transferred into rotational energy on the CB as opposed to forward momentum. True of any shaft. But worse for LD.
An extreme example of this would be hitting the edge of the ball. It will barely move and spin in place. Just because a cue would miscue this type of shot, does not change the reality of this effect.
That said, when during that tiny fraction of a second that the LD shaft is contacting the CB, the LD shaft is deflecting to the side out of the way of the ball - pushing it more off center as well as yielding to the CB. Whereas, a regular shaft is instead deflecting the CB more, yielding less to it, going less off center relative to the point of impact. Thus, putting more energy into the ball.
It's the same with balls. A straight on stop shot vs. a thin cut. Energy stays with the CB on a thin cut. Full energy goes into the OB on a straight on stop shot.
LD exacerbates that effect by being lighter. Have you ever used a light weight CB? Why does it draw easier but follow harder? Same thing.
Furthermore, this BS for some reason is strongest in pool. Not so much in Carom or Snooker. Why is that? They put brass ferrules on Snooker cues. If ultra lightweight front end was better, they wouldn't do that.
Why is it much harder to jump or masse with a LD shaft? That proves everything right there.
I still hold to my experiences. Regular shafts maintain more speed and power.
But the difference doesn't out weight having lower CB deflection for most players. It's a trade-off most are willing to take.
What I don't like is the false claims that you can have a super low deflecting shaft and you give up nothing for it.
Forget the Honda vs Ford SUV example. How about Sumo wrestling? I guess most of us can bounce a Pro Sumo wrestler right out of the circle because we're lighter...sure. Our weight has no effect in how much energy we can impart into our opponent. Makes perfect sense.
Keep drinking the LD koolaid.
Grilled Cheese <- has played with a Predator for 18 years.
I have a pretty good memory. Predator was the big name and biggest innovator of LD. The claim was made the Predator generated more spin, more speed/power.
Predator's claims slowly disappeared years ago. Because they were total BS.
The only thing they consistently claim over the years is lower CB deflection which is true. No one argues that.
But at what cost?
Some say that the lower CB deflection comes at no penalty whatsoever. There's no compromises at all. You get all the same speed, spin and power. Free energy!
Well, at least they are down to claiming you lose nothing, as opposed to the past claims that you gained spin, speed and power while deflecting less. Have your cake & eat it!
During the collision between the shaft/tip and CB, because the LD shaft has less end mass - it deflects, to minimize how much the CB deflects - yet, somehow it deflects off the CB more but miraculously is able to impart the same exact energy into the CB.
Ya, I crashed my Honda Civic into a Ford Expedition - the Ford went sliding down the road just as much as if I would have hit it with another Ford Expedition....
Only in the world of shaft technology does the laws of physics change.
Ha! Since classical physics doesn't apply at the atomic level, maybe then we also need a special Quantum Cue Physics to justify how awesome LD is. Quantum Deflection Physics. A way to explain all the strange phenomena (aka BS marketing claims of cue manufacturers)
How do the pseudo-scientists justify this? By claiming that contact is only .001 of a second, so that's the same as all shafts. This is a red herring and contradictory.
The more off center you hit a ball, the more speed/power you're losing relative to forward motion since some of that is transferred into rotational energy on the CB as opposed to forward momentum. True of any shaft. But worse for LD.
An extreme example of this would be hitting the edge of the ball. It will barely move and spin in place. Just because a cue would miscue this type of shot, does not change the reality of this effect.
That said, when during that tiny fraction of a second that the LD shaft is contacting the CB, the LD shaft is deflecting to the side out of the way of the ball - pushing it more off center as well as yielding to the CB. Whereas, a regular shaft is instead deflecting the CB more, yielding less to it, going less off center relative to the point of impact. Thus, putting more energy into the ball.
It's the same with balls. A straight on stop shot vs. a thin cut. Energy stays with the CB on a thin cut. Full energy goes into the OB on a straight on stop shot.
LD exacerbates that effect by being lighter. Have you ever used a light weight CB? Why does it draw easier but follow harder? Same thing.
Furthermore, this BS for some reason is strongest in pool. Not so much in Carom or Snooker. Why is that? They put brass ferrules on Snooker cues. If ultra lightweight front end was better, they wouldn't do that.
Why is it much harder to jump or masse with a LD shaft? That proves everything right there.
I still hold to my experiences. Regular shafts maintain more speed and power.
But the difference doesn't out weight having lower CB deflection for most players. It's a trade-off most are willing to take.
What I don't like is the false claims that you can have a super low deflecting shaft and you give up nothing for it.
Forget the Honda vs Ford SUV example. How about Sumo wrestling? I guess most of us can bounce a Pro Sumo wrestler right out of the circle because we're lighter...sure. Our weight has no effect in how much energy we can impart into our opponent. Makes perfect sense.
Keep drinking the LD koolaid.
Grilled Cheese <- has played with a Predator for 18 years.
Pseudo-science says deflection is bad so you pay 3x more for shafts.
I have a pretty good memory. Predator was the big name and biggest innovator of LD. The claim was made the Predator generated more spin, more speed/power.
Predator's claims slowly disappeared years ago. Because they were total BS.
The only thing they consistently claim over the years is lower CB deflection which is true. No one argues that.
But at what cost?
Some say that the lower CB deflection comes at no penalty whatsoever. There's no compromises at all. You get all the same speed, spin and power. Free energy!
Well, at least they are down to claiming you lose nothing, as opposed to the past claims that you gained spin, speed and power while deflecting less. Have your cake & eat it!
During the collision between the shaft/tip and CB, because the LD shaft has less end mass - it deflects, to minimize how much the CB deflects - yet, somehow it deflects off the CB more but miraculously is able to impart the same exact energy into the CB.
Ya, I crashed my Honda Civic into a Ford Expedition - the Ford went sliding down the road just as much as if I would have hit it with another Ford Expedition....
Only in the world of shaft technology does the laws of physics change.
Ha! Since classical physics doesn't apply at the atomic level, maybe then we also need a special Quantum Cue Physics to justify how awesome LD is. Quantum Deflection Physics. A way to explain all the strange phenomena (aka BS marketing claims of cue manufacturers)
How do the pseudo-scientists justify this? By claiming that contact is only .001 of a second, so that's the same as all shafts. This is a red herring and contradictory.
The more off center you hit a ball, the more speed/power you're losing relative to forward motion since some of that is transferred into rotational energy on the CB as opposed to forward momentum. True of any shaft. But worse for LD.
An extreme example of this would be hitting the edge of the ball. It will barely move and spin in place. Just because a cue would miscue this type of shot, does not change the reality of this effect.
That said, when during that tiny fraction of a second that the LD shaft is contacting the CB, the LD shaft is deflecting to the side out of the way of the ball - pushing it more off center as well as yielding to the CB. Whereas, a regular shaft is instead deflecting the CB more, yielding less to it, going less off center relative to the point of impact. Thus, putting more energy into the ball.
It's the same with balls. A straight on stop shot vs. a thin cut. Energy stays with the CB on a thin cut. Full energy goes into the OB on a straight on stop shot.
LD exacerbates that effect by being lighter. Have you ever used a light weight CB? Why does it draw easier but follow harder? Same thing.
Furthermore, this BS for some reason is strongest in pool. Not so much in Carom or Snooker. Why is that? They put brass ferrules on Snooker cues. If ultra lightweight front end was better, they wouldn't do that.
Why is it much harder to jump or masse with a LD shaft? That proves everything right there.
I still hold to my experiences. Regular shafts maintain more speed and power.
But the difference doesn't out weight having lower CB deflection for most players. It's a trade-off most are willing to take.
What I don't like is the false claims that you can have a super low deflecting shaft and you give up nothing for it.
Forget the Honda vs Ford SUV example. How about Sumo wrestling? I guess most of us can bounce a Pro Sumo wrestler right out of the circle because we're lighter...sure. Our weight has no effect in how much energy we can impart into our opponent. Makes perfect sense.
Keep drinking the LD koolaid.
Grilled Cheese <- has played with a Predator for 18 years.
Tell them damn pool scientists a thing or two.
There are lots of things that they say that anybody who knows how to play pool knows is pure nonsense.
Yes, because "scientists" disproved those claims. Now you're making the same claims in the opposite direction (non-LD cues generate more spin/speed/power). Wonder how that'll turn out...
This is probably the misunderstanding at the root of your error. A lower-mass shaft doesn't "deflect more" - all shafts deflect the distance the CB rotates (while in contact - after that it doesn't matter). It's just easier to push a lower-mass shaft the same distance, so there's less "push back" on the CB - i.e., less CB deflection.
This is easy to confuse with the effect of shaft stiffness - but comparisons of more and less flexible shafts show it's not the stiffness that matters.
Your misunderstanding here is that more force = more spin effect. But spin effect in pool isn't determined by raw RPMs; it's determined by the ratio of spin to speed, which doesn't change when you hit harder.Ya, I crashed my Honda Civic into a Ford Expedition - the Ford went sliding down the road just as much as if I would have hit it with another Ford Expedition....
That explains some things, but nothing you've brought up here.
Right.
Wrong. And easy to test. Try it sometime - instructions are in an earlier post above.
Well, Cheese's post sure didn't demonstrate that. Maybe you can?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I'm not saying flex has anything to do with it. That was Meucci's claims over the years.
The LD shaft is yielding to the CB more than a standard shaft. It's about which one is going to move out of the way and how much.
Because off the off center hit, there's forces wanting to move both the shaft and CB sideways in opposite directions. We can agree to that I assume. The question is, which is going to move or "deflect" more relative to the other. The LD does this more than a regular shaft so that the CB doesn't have to as much. Sending the CB on a straighter path. This (I contend) causes energy to be lost, that is, the shaft is not imparting all it could into the CB.
Again, here is an area where Quantum LD Shaft Physics needs to be invented. In all other realms of physics - mass x velocity = momentum.
Except with LD pool shafts.
With LD shafts, lower mass x velocity = same momentum. !?!?!?!?!
Pool industry needs to export this new technology and new science to the rest of the world. Billions can be made.
One day, in Jacksonville - someone drilled out a shaft. The physics world was about to be transformed forever.
An LD shaft resists with less force as it "yields" because less mass is being moved. Mass has inertia, and when you push it sideways, it pushes back. For more information, see:
what causes squirt
shaft endmass and stiffness effects
Enjoy,
Dave
Last edited:
I initially switched to a 314 shaft in the early 2000s (03 I think) because I loved the taper, I liked how it made applying follow and draw much easier, and it made utilizing inside English much easier.
Before that I wouldn't dare use "extreme" inside in a game time action situation because it was just too low percentage. A noticeable benefit to me was that the 314 increased my capability and consistency when using extreme inside (when needed - break in case of emergency) by at least 50%. It can really get you out of jams -- or create opportunities if you're capable of using it with confidence.
I still love the hit and feel of a standard shaft better. I played very good with a Schon shaft and Kamui tip this past year - but there were still limitations to my game. So, I went back to Low Deflection simply because it makes the game easier. And results don't lie.
Before that I wouldn't dare use "extreme" inside in a game time action situation because it was just too low percentage. A noticeable benefit to me was that the 314 increased my capability and consistency when using extreme inside (when needed - break in case of emergency) by at least 50%. It can really get you out of jams -- or create opportunities if you're capable of using it with confidence.
I still love the hit and feel of a standard shaft better. I played very good with a Schon shaft and Kamui tip this past year - but there were still limitations to my game. So, I went back to Low Deflection simply because it makes the game easier. And results don't lie.
Last edited:
It's not about how much each shaft moves; it's about how much resistance each shaft has to the CB's sideways rotational force while moving the same distance (the distance the surface of the rotating CB moves) - i.e., how much mass the CB is pushing against.
Only the resistance to sideways movement is different between the shafts - the forward forces are the same (assuming same overall cue weight and speed). And even if the overall weights/speeds are different, producing different forward forces, that only affects the CB's speed and "raw" RPMs, not the "spin effect" from spin/speed ratio.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
This is exactly what I was gonna say. Grilled Cheese beat me to the punch! lolPseudo-science says deflection is bad so you pay 3x more for shafts.
I have a pretty good memory. Predator was the big name and biggest innovator of LD. The claim was made the Predator generated more spin, more speed/power.
Predator's claims slowly disappeared years ago. Because they were total BS.
The only thing they consistently claim over the years is lower CB deflection which is true. No one argues that.
But at what cost?
Some say that the lower CB deflection comes at no penalty whatsoever. There's no compromises at all. You get all the same speed, spin and power. Free energy!
Well, at least they are down to claiming you lose nothing, as opposed to the past claims that you gained spin, speed and power while deflecting less. Have your cake & eat it!
During the collision between the shaft/tip and CB, because the LD shaft has less end mass - it deflects, to minimize how much the CB deflects - yet, somehow it deflects off the CB more but miraculously is able to impart the same exact energy into the CB.
Ya, I crashed my Honda Civic into a Ford Expedition - the Ford went sliding down the road just as much as if I would have hit it with another Ford Expedition....
Only in the world of shaft technology does the laws of physics change.
Ha! Since classical physics doesn't apply at the atomic level, maybe then we also need a special Quantum Cue Physics to justify how awesome LD is. Quantum Deflection Physics. A way to explain all the strange phenomena (aka BS marketing claims of cue manufacturers)
How do the pseudo-scientists justify this? By claiming that contact is only .001 of a second, so that's the same as all shafts. This is a red herring and contradictory.
The more off center you hit a ball, the more speed/power you're losing relative to forward motion since some of that is transferred into rotational energy on the CB as opposed to forward momentum. True of any shaft. But worse for LD.
An extreme example of this would be hitting the edge of the ball. It will barely move and spin in place. Just because a cue would miscue this type of shot, does not change the reality of this effect.
That said, when during that tiny fraction of a second that the LD shaft is contacting the CB, the LD shaft is deflecting to the side out of the way of the ball - pushing it more off center as well as yielding to the CB. Whereas, a regular shaft is instead deflecting the CB more, yielding less to it, going less off center relative to the point of impact. Thus, putting more energy into the ball.
It's the same with balls. A straight on stop shot vs. a thin cut. Energy stays with the CB on a thin cut. Full energy goes into the OB on a straight on stop shot.
LD exacerbates that effect by being lighter. Have you ever used a light weight CB? Why does it draw easier but follow harder? Same thing.
Furthermore, this BS for some reason is strongest in pool. Not so much in Carom or Snooker. Why is that? They put brass ferrules on Snooker cues. If ultra lightweight front end was better, they wouldn't do that.
Why is it much harder to jump or masse with a LD shaft? That proves everything right there.
I still hold to my experiences. Regular shafts maintain more speed and power.
But the difference doesn't out weight having lower CB deflection for most players. It's a trade-off most are willing to take.
What I don't like is the false claims that you can have a super low deflecting shaft and you give up nothing for it.
Forget the Honda vs Ford SUV example. How about Sumo wrestling? I guess most of us can bounce a Pro Sumo wrestler right out of the circle because we're lighter...sure. Our weight has no effect in how much energy we can impart into our opponent. Makes perfect sense.
Keep drinking the LD koolaid.
Grilled Cheese <- has played with a Predator for 18 years.