Why avoid deflection like 'THE PLAUGE'?

[Natural]

I must admit, I am lacking in a great deal of knowledge and am prepared to learn. That is one of the main reasons for me being here is to be enlightened by many of the intelligent individuals that grace this forum. I will just not stand to be made fun of immaturely after I've expressed my beliefs with sincerity.

Just to be clear, I used a 314-2 for a little while. I also played an OB-1 as well. They are well made shafts, but IMO, they lack in feel. There are also some things I just can't do on a pool table with one of those. I never said I was a fan of a 'high-deflection' shaft, as I believe a solid, stiff hitting shaft is good.

I just wanted to see how many of us out there felt the same way I do regarding this issue. It seems that there are some pretty dedicated LD shaft users, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as you truly understand how to play. I am no pro, but I do have skill in all games no matter the equipment.

I am in no way bashing those who use LD shafts, just the misconception that deflection is such a terrible thing. In pool, deflection is part of the game. To wish for there to be none, or almost none is ridiculous. I wish some of the people on here who accuse me so unjustly would go back and re-read what I originally posted. I may have referred indirectly, but it has become evident so far those who know what I'm talking about, and those who don't. It is clear to me, just as in real life, who the truly intelligent ones are not just by what is said, but also by what isn't. :wink:

I was one of the ones who said I would never use a Predator (all there was at the time) because my shaft played just fine. A few years later, I noticed that not on;y was Predator still around but this low deflection thing really took off. So I did my own research and found someone that was qualified to teach me the pros and cons of LD shafts VS standard shafts. I then chose to spend the time needed to learn how to use one. I play on big tables and snooker tables mostly and as my eyes have gotten worse, so has my game. It is flat out amazing how much simpler certain shots are with a LD shaft once you get used to them. As for feel: try changing the tip, ot matters more than anything else

Sorry for being a smartass, but this discussion gets old and almost everyone who decides to learn about deflection ends up seeing the light. These shafts are not magic wands but they do have unbeleivable benefits when used correctly.

 

[nathandumoulin]

That's nice of you. Be a mature individual and make fun of me, totally missing the point. Why don't you counter what I said with some legitimate knowledge and discuss this issue like an educated person? The point is in where the real answer lies, and that is inside the person. Not the equipment.

I agree, his words were poorly chosen, and as a result he was being rude.

However there is some merit to what he says. He's trying to point out that not all technological innovations give an unfair advantage. Some are just flat out practical.

LD shafts correct the natural impurity and inconsistency of a 1 piece shaft. In his eyes (and mine as well), this does not so much provide an added edge, but rather overcomes a variable to the game that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

(hopefully that made sense)

 

[SK Custom Cues]

To the original poster-
I agree with some of your basic sentiment. If you are buying ANYTHING with the intent that it will magically improve your skill ( or life, etc). You ARE buying into hype and are having unrealistic expectations and WILL be disapointed. The problem is NOT with the product or its quality. The problem is with the unrealistic expectation of the buyer.

If I buy a mercedes because I EXPECT it to get me more chicks, and I end up with girls just thinking less of me for being just another pretentious guy who is trying too hard to impress people, does that mean that mercedes makes a bad car? I mean it is obvious from all the hype and marketing out there that it is implied that my life will be better, right?

Watch a beer or soda comercial. I do not know about you, but the last time a drank a xxxxxx beer, I DID NOT go home with a supermodel! I still may prefer one brand over another. I am not fooloish because I like pepsi over coke. I am ONLY foolish if I think that by drinking pepsi, I will magically achieve something that is unrealistic.

Again do not knock the product itself, but the flawed thinking of a consumer who has unrealistic expectaions.

Also, do not assume that everybody who buys thes shafts is doing so with unrealistic expectaions. I like my OB1. It has not made me a world champion, and I do not expect that it ever will. Even of I were to become a champion, it would not be because of a LD shaft, any more than the soda I drink. It DOES give me a feel that I find to my liking. I tried it BEFORE I bought it. I did not make any assumptions based on what an ad or endorsement said. I bought it because I liked it in the real world. I have realistic expectations, and HAVE NOT been disapointed.

How many people buy any brand of cue or shaft, etc based soley on a repuattion? Why are you not going after them? An LD shaft is a pretty small investment, and the demand is great. It would be easy to resell if you change your mind. The cost is right in line with ANY quality shaft. It is not like buying a luxery car that is many times the price of a standard vehicle.

Pool has been around for hundreds of years. It has been around longer than vulcanized rubber. Cushions used to have cloth and all kinds of various other materials stuffed in them. A talented pool player in those times could deal with this. Would you want to, knowing there is something better? The cushions were unreliable, the balls were made of ivory, etc, etc. Are these the playing conditions you would like to have?

You could get used to playing on a table that is unlevel. You could learn exactly how it affects the balls path, and how to account for it, and control it. There will be times that you could even use it to your advantage, does this make it better? OR, GIVEN THE CHOICE, WOULD YOU RATHER CHOOSE A LEVEL TABLE? Would you imply that it is my lack of skill that makes me partial to a level table that provides more reliable results?

The bottom line is - A low deflection shaft has NEVER made someone without any skill a great player. Anyone who believes this is foolish, and so is your assumption that you will find a large number of such people on here.

I am willing to bet that the people on here who defend their choice of using a LD shaft are NOT the ones you are complaining about with uninformed and unrealistic expectations who just blindly are looking for a magic wand for their game. First identify those people and take it up with them.

Jw

I welcome your comment see that you have a solid grip on what I'm trying to express. I was wrong in making it appear that ALL LD shaft users need to re-examine their priorities. No, what I meant was people who don't actually have enough knowledge and don't know the difference being mislead into thinking the wrong thing. I probably should have made my self more clear in the original post and explained myself more thoroughly, and I apologize.

As you all can see, I play with a custom cue shaft. It's a good one too, with great feedback and a great hit. It does what I command it to do and I can rely on it for whatever I need. Jumps, breaking, playing, masse, 3cushion, and on and on. I would just like to see more people seeking more in the way of developing their skill as opposed to reading who's got the lowest deflecting shaft all the time.

 

[Caromsoft]

I will jump into this as someone who purchased an OB-1 as a relative beginner.

Just after I began as a member here I started reading about deflection and low deflection shafts. I began to understand how deflection worked and how the pool player had to compensate. When I decided to step up to a good quality cue I made up my mind that I was going to get a low deflection shaft to go along with it. Why? Because I realized that while I could spend the hundreds if not thousands of hours to learn how to compensate for deflection, to acquire that "skill", if the technology existed for me to minimize that learning time I would be foolish IMO to not take advantage of that. So yes I took a "short cut" to becoming a better player, and the OB-1 did improve my play. And those hundreds if not thousands of hours I saved? I spent those learning about english, and throw, and position.

Does all this mean that I am not as well rounded a pool player because I would have a hard time without my OB-1? I don't know, I never play with another cue so I don't really care. If I find myself out playing with a house cue so what, I guess I'll just miss more. :smile:

 

[poolpro]

I welcome your comment see that you have a solid grip on what I'm trying to express. I was wrong in making it appear that ALL LD shaft users need to re-examine their priorities. No, what I meant was people who don't actually have enough knowledge and don't know the difference being mislead into thinking the wrong thing. I probably should have made my self more clear in the original post and explained myself more thoroughly, and I apologize.

As you all can see, I play with a custom cue shaft. It's a good one too, with great feedback and a great hit. It does what I command it to do and I can rely on it for whatever I need. Jumps, breaking, playing, masse, 3cushion, and on and on. I would just like to see more people seeking more in the way of developing their skill as opposed to reading who's got the lowest deflecting shaft all the time.

I do not believe that less deflection is the only thing of importance, and is not the most important thing.

I have tried many shafts ( one piece and laminated, and spliced LD, etc).

There are many one piece shafts that I LOVE.

Of the LD shafts, my favorite is the OB1.

If you believe the charts, last time I checked the the Z2 was rated best ( as in lowest deflection). I have not tried the OB2 yet. I do not care for the taper of the Z2 or similar anyway.

I like the hit and feel of the OB1 better. If the ONLY thing I was interested in was less deflection, I would run out and buy whatever was on the top of the chart, ignoring all else.

I think that hit and feel are MORE important than deflection rating.

Think about it. If you are comparing 2 one piece shafts, what do you do? Do you go looking for deflection ratings and info, OR.. do you hit balls with them and see how they feel to you?


I really like the feel of the OB1, the LD properties are just an added bonus.


Think about this for a minute- what if what we now consider to be low deflection is surpassed greatly in say ten years.

Lets say we achieve an additional 25% or more reduction in deflection and now have SUPER LOW DEFLECTION shafts! ( Kinda like blue ray for cue shafts )

How many players who currently use LD shafts will now switch to the new SUPER LD shafts? Some will, many will not.

It comes down to what you are used to. Many will not switch to a confirmed more accurate cue, simply because of the work involved to adjust ( if it aint broke don't fix it). These are the SAME people ( me included) who proclaim the many benefits of a LD shaft. They fully understand and experience the results. The same way that many will not switch to LD shafts now.


Sometimes in discussions of LD vs standard shafts, the point is lost that ALL SHAFTS HAVE DEFLECTION! Before the popularity of LD shafts, you would have 2 shafts with one having considerably less than the other.

Low deflection is not new. Some of the manufacturing and marketing of them is.

There are some who happen to LOVE their one piece shaft ( that happens to have low deflection properties) that will criticize a LD shaft user for swearing by their choice in a shaft. The IRONY IS - They are BOTH prefering the same playing characteristics. But the 1 piece user feels like the LD guy is just " buying into the hype" and does not have the ex[erience that he has, etc.

I remember when predators first became popular. I was intrigued with it. Most people focused on the pie piece construction, believeing that was what made them have the LD properties. It was the reduced end mass.

Most people associated the spliced construction with the LD properties. I think if they had just come out with one piece shafts with reduced end mass the conroversy may not have been as much of a deal.

I actually believe the radial consistency to be as desireable ( or more) of a characteristic as the LD properties. Though you can achieve this same consistency with a sharpie marker!:smile:


EVERYBODY has to deal with deflection. NOBODY gets a pass in this manner. Is adjusting for MORE deflection a sign of more skill or less intelligence? I am just tryink to poke fun, don't get all upset:wink:

Like I said, the guy who is thinking that all this LD crap is just nonsense and everybody is just fooling themselves may in fact have a cue with LESS deflection than those who he is complaining about!

The LD shafts have many benefits of which the low deflection is just one.


Find what you like and move on!

A final question--

If you met me for the first time and agreed to play me, would you change your mind if I pulled out any paticular shaft/cue?

Would you say " Hey that isn't fair, you did not tell me you had one of those! We need to adjust the handicap!"

Me nether.

I think it proves what WE ALL know. The cue does NOT make the player.

No reasonable person goes against this. Otherwise, you could accept entries for a tournamnet, and just have everyone open their case and you could award the money based on what cue each player brought.

" There is no way you guys would stand a chance, he has a xxxxx cue. Everyone ageed?"

I just bought a new pair of nikes, I do not feel that I will play basketball like Micheal Jordan.

Jw

 

[Slingshot 14]

I recieved an OB1 last week for Christmas, I'm glad for two reasons. 1) It fits about half the cues I own, 2) I like tryin new things (btw, I was happy with what I had). Will it make me a better player ? don't know, but so far I'm happy with it.

 

[s0lidz]

If you have used a regular shaft for years and perfected your game with it, there is no need to cross over to an LD shaft. Nobody has ever said that you need to switch. Nobody has said that if you did your game would improve. You need to stick with what works best for you.

Me on the other hand, I am a newer player. I just started playing 2-3 years ago and just bought my first cue last year. I bought an OB-1 shaft, and later an OB-2 shaft because they are very well constructed and give a consistent hit. I can tell you that these shafts did not make me a better player. But they did give me better control over the circumstances on the table (consistency), and with that I was able to practice and become a more skilled player. If you have a problem with that then it is you who needs to change, not your cue, but your attitude.

 

[sjm]

I think the advantage gained by playing with a low deflection shaft is greatly overstated. The best ball-pocketer of all time was Luther Lassiter and the best position player of a ll time was Willie Mosconi. Neither had a low deflection shaft on their cue.

 

[worriedbeef]

low squirt shafts are no good for jump shots because they aren't stiff enough. the way the shafts work to eliminate squirt is by bending out of the way of the cue ball, rather than NOT bending and forcing the cue ball off-line instead.

in a jump shot you want the cue to be rigid and not give way so it forces the cue ball into the bed of the table - low squirt shafts don't do this, they bend out of the way a bit and don't hold firm enough.


btw I love my OB-1. I have a 314^2 as well but I use it to break with as I don't like the way it feels.

There are a couple of shots I prefer to play with a traditional shaft but in truth probably the main reason why is because I haven't practiced them quite enough. The first one that springs to mind is a power shot, with the cue ball close to the corner pocket and the object ball very close to the opposite corner pocket touching the rail, shot with high inside. I'm crap at it with my OB-1, but it's just down to practice. I imagine it'll be a hanger if I just spend 20 minutes on it one day.

 

[Natural]

I think the advantage gained by playing with a low deflection shaft is greatly overstated. The best ball-pocketer of all time was Luther Lassiter and the best position player of a ll time was Willie Mosconi. Neither had a low deflection shaft on their cue.

Did you personally test the deflection of their cues?

Can you imagine what these masters of cueing could have done given today's technology?

 

[macguy]

I think the advantage gained by playing with a low deflection shaft is greatly overstated. The best ball-pocketer of all time was Luther Lassiter and the best position player of a ll time was Willie Mosconi. Neither had a low deflection shaft on their cue.

Interesting you say that because they both used thinner shafts then what was the norm an the time. Lassiter used a 12 1/2 mm with a long taper, (I hit balls with his cue so I know), when other players were using 13/1/4 to as big as 14 mm shafts. Mosconi used a 12 1/2 as well. They were in fact using shafts that may be what could be described as LD shafts although they didn't really know it at the time.

 

[sjm]

Interesting you say that because they both used thinner shafts then what was the norm an the time. Lassiter used a 12 1/2 mm with a long taper, (I hit balls with his cue so I know), when other players were using 13/1/4 to as big as 14 mm shafts. Mosconi used a 12 1/2 as well. They were in fact using shafts that may be what could be described as LD shafts although they didn't really know it at the time.

Wow! I never knew that. Thanks for those interesting historical tidbits. Perhaps Mosconi and Lassiter were ahead of their time.

 

[poolpro]

I think the advantage gained by playing with a low deflection shaft is greatly overstated. The best ball-pocketer of all time was Luther Lassiter and the best position player of a ll time was Willie Mosconi. Neither had a low deflection shaft on their cue.

This is what I was referring to in my earlier post.

Of course they did not have a spliced shaft with a hollowed out front end, but how do you know how much deflection their cues had? I know they did not say predator or OB1 on them, but they still may have been a low deflection shaft nonetheless.


And as I also stated earlier, the cue DOES NOT make the player. I do not think ANYONE diputes this fact, so I am curious why people continue to fight this assumption when I do not believe anyone is making this claim.


The players you mention also used cues that were 57 inches long with typically thicker handles. Most modern cues ar 58-59 inches. Maybe if I get a 57 inch cue I could play like them. What do you think? They also did not use computers or cell phones. Maybe that is what is holding me back.. the fact that I have a cell phone!

Great players are great players because they did what was required to become great players. If they had a choice of some of the LD shafts that we have today, some probably would have chosen them. They would still have become great players. Their choice in shafts would NOT be the deciding factor in their ability.



I want to see just ONE person make the claim that a LD shaft will make you a good ( or great ) player without requiring the practice it normally takes.

THEN we can all jump on the bus to make that ONE person feel silly. Untill then we are all preaching to the choir. So..... who honestly believes that it will make you a player without the work?



It is a fact that ALL cues have deflection. It is a fact that some cues have less deflection than others. This is one of many variables in pool. It would seem logical that if you can reduce or eliminate variables you would increase consistancy ( actually that is the definition of consistancy .. less variable!). Just as it is better to not vary your pre shot routine, or to change up your stance from shot to shot. If you can reduce how much the cueball deflects, and more importantly how much the deflection varies from shot to shot, how could it be less desireable?


Once again: It is a fact that all cues deflect, it is a fact that some cues deflect less than others. It is a matter of opinion how important this is.


Jw

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

I have a 314 and OB1, love the heck outta them and wouldn't trade them for anything. Still, they can't beat my Schon and Sly shaft by country mile.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

worriedbeef:
...low squirt shafts are no good for jump shots because they aren't stiff enough.

This may be true, although my low-squirt shaft is pretty stiff.

...the way the shafts work to eliminate squirt is by bending out of the way of the cue ball, rather than NOT bending and forcing the cue ball off-line instead.

But this is not true. There are stiff low-squirt cues and flexible high-squirt cues.

pj
chgo

 

[unknownpro]

Interesting you say that because they both used thinner shafts then what was the norm an the time. Lassiter used a 12 1/2 mm with a long taper, (I hit balls with his cue so I know), when other players were using 13/1/4 to as big as 14 mm shafts. Mosconi used a 12 1/2 as well. They were in fact using shafts that may be what could be described as LD shafts although they didn't really know it at the time.

Strickland told me about 20 years ago that modern players were better because they went to thinner shafts. He was saying they used to play with fourteens. I tought they'd been using thin shafts for years because our poolroom was always full of em.

He later said he'd have won a lot more if he'd stayed with Meucci, but they wouldn't pay him what he wanted.

 

[poohkiller]

This is a very interesting thread with lots of very good replies that made me think.

However, I do not play with Predator or Ob-1 shafts (I have not tried others yet) because I don't like the way they felt so far. Perhaps with a different butt and a different tip at least the OB-1 would be better - I am excluding predator because I was playing with a 314(2) shaft for 7-8 months and got used to it and I liked the way it spun the ball and deflected less but its hit was very DEAD.

If more spin and less deflection can be achieved by LESS good feel (it is subjective so with less good feel to me) then I'll pass on them.

As for those saying that "Well then you probably don't have ABS and power steering etc. in your car" my thoughts are that the cars have become A LOT heavier, A LOT faster and many decades ago cars were lighter with much-much thinner tires and you did not need any power steering at all b/c it wasn't that heavy to steer. You did not need ABS because you wouldn't go so fast and the breaks weren't strong enough anyways.

But what has changed in pool ever since? Nothing. The balls are the same, the cloth is the same, the pockets are the same. Nothing has changed. Luther Lassiter, Willie Mosconi, Willie Hoppe and all the great players were able to run hundreds of balls in straight pool without any low-deflection thing because they would not think "Ohhh how much better it would be if I did not have to compensate for these damn long shots with English". No, they were practicing A LOT and would have incredibly good matches with ANY of today's pros with ANY of all the inventions.

And my very personal opinion is that if there are two players that can play exactly the same but one had a LD shaft and one had a standard plain jane cue without phenolic inserts and all the gadgets in it with a standard shaft than I'd say the latter one is a better player.

This is merely my opinion, though.

 

[poolpro]

This is a very interesting thread with lots of very good replies that made me think.

However, I do not play with Predator or Ob-1 shafts (I have not tried others yet) because I don't like the way they felt so far. Perhaps with a different butt and a different tip at least the OB-1 would be better - I am excluding predator because I was playing with a 314(2) shaft for 7-8 months and got used to it and I liked the way it spun the ball and deflected less but its hit was very DEAD.

If more spin and less deflection can be achieved by LESS good feel (it is subjective so with less good feel to me) then I'll pass on them.

As for those saying that "Well then you probably don't have ABS and power steering etc. in your car" my thoughts are that the cars have become A LOT heavier, A LOT faster and many decades ago cars were lighter with much-much thinner tires and you did not need any power steering at all b/c it wasn't that heavy to steer. You did not need ABS because you wouldn't go so fast and the breaks weren't strong enough anyways.

But what has changed in pool ever since? Nothing. The balls are the same, the cloth is the same, the pockets are the same. Nothing has changed. Luther Lassiter, Willie Mosconi, Willie Hoppe and all the great players were able to run hundreds of balls in straight pool without any low-deflection thing because they would not think "Ohhh how much better it would be if I did not have to compensate for these damn long shots with English". No, they were practicing A LOT and would have incredibly good matches with ANY of today's pros with ANY of all the inventions.

And my very personal opinion is that if there are two players that can play exactly the same but one had a LD shaft and one had a standard plain jane cue without phenolic inserts and all the gadgets in it with a standard shaft than I'd say the latter one is a better player.

This is merely my opinion, though.

Actually the average weight of a car is much LIGHTER than they used to be!




And you said that "if 2 players were exactly the same in ablity that 1 would be better"? It sounds like if the score ends in a tie, than he is the winner.

I am misunderstanding this statemnet.

 

[poohkiller]

Well, I personally do not believe that cars became lighter with all the extra safety parts, the heavier gadgets that are put in to add more comfort to the car, etc.

As for the statement, what I wanted to say is that if there were two players at the same level I'd say that if I had to choose who is the better player than I'd choose the latter one. In the theory / example that I mentioned they needn't play against each other, they can be in different cities, countries, anything. I just wanted the emphasize that they are the same.
This is the point I wanted to make and I am sorry if my English is difficult to understand, I have plenty of room to improve with English as well.

 

[poolpro]

Well, I personally do not believe that cars became lighter with all the extra safety parts, the heavier gadgets that are put in to add more comfort to the car, etc.

As for the statement, what I wanted to say is that if there were two players at the same level I'd say that if I had to choose who is the better player than I'd choose the latter one. In the theory / example that I mentioned they needn't play against each other, they can be in different cities, countries, anything. I just wanted the emphasize that they are the same.
This is the point I wanted to make and I am sorry if my English is difficult to understand, I have plenty of room to improve with English as well.

2 players at the same level, but one is better?