Why avoid deflection like 'THE PLAUGE'?
- Thread starter SK Custom Cues
- Start date
That is just MY opinion. How ridiculous
I begun reading back a little as I did not make it to the 4th page when making my post but your answers made me stay (it's 1:47 am here) and I have read one or two posts of you in this thread earlier.
I think the point that you miss in what I'm saying is that of course, there is no shaft on this planet that would make you play a lot better or anything like that. But I feel like I am not saying anything false when claiming that drawing back the cue ball with a LD shaft is easier compared to a standard shaft.
And of course you can make the same draw-shot with literally any shaft and it is only up to you and your ability and the time spent with practicing. But for some reason I still feel like it takes a little more time and more patience to make the same shot when it comes to a standard shaft.
Am I totally wrong here?
I think the point that you miss in what I'm saying is that of course, there is no shaft on this planet that would make you play a lot better or anything like that. But I feel like I am not saying anything false when claiming that drawing back the cue ball with a LD shaft is easier compared to a standard shaft.
And of course you can make the same draw-shot with literally any shaft and it is only up to you and your ability and the time spent with practicing. But for some reason I still feel like it takes a little more time and more patience to make the same shot when it comes to a standard shaft.
Am I totally wrong here?
poohkiller said:
So, your opinion is that a LD shaft makes the game easier. This is the exact "hype" that was originally being bashed on here. So your opinion is that the hype is in fact true, but if you take advantage of it you are a lesser player.. EVEN if you play every bit as well as a so called good player. Are you starting to see what I am getting at yet?
Why would you fault someone for trying to get better results in their pool game? It would be even HARDER to draw the ball with one hand and a cue with no tip on it. Would you think I was a better player if I chose to play with a cue without a tip, to make the game more challenging for myself?
The logic is also applies to why instruction is valuable. You absolutely can become a good player with terrible fundamentals, but WHY? Why not learn the proper way and do your best to learn a good consistant stroke.
You can play good pool BECAUSE of your fundamentals, or DESPITE your fundamnetals.
Good instruction can greatly reduce the time it takes to become a better player. Would you by the same logic used above, think that if 2 players play the same the one who had great instruction is the lesser player? I think he was smart enough to use all the resources available to play a better game of pool. This is a quality that makes a great player.
It would be like sombody taking lessons and asking for help with a specific shot. They are looking for a way to gain more consistancy with their results. They are given the answer, and then say " well, that DOES work, but I am not going to use it, because I would like it to be harder". Is this the behaviour of someone who is truly seeking to play better?
If you do not like LD shafts, don't use them. It is odd to fault someone else for choosing them, or to think lesser of them.
If we match up, will you make a different game with me depending on which shaft I will use?
MY main point is that the cue DOES NOT make the player. It sounds like you are putting more importance on the cue then I am.
If you can't play- No cue will make you a player
If you CAN play- you can play with just about any cue
If you can play, AND you find a cue that suits you, you will play with more confidence and more consistency.
Notice I did not specify that the cue had to be an LD shaft, just that it be suited well for the player. For some players, the worst thing they could do would be to switch to a LD shaft.
If you do not feel that a LD cue suits you, fine. But how can you imply that a LD cue makes the game easier, and at the same time imply that it is a bad choice to use one?
I can understand as a matter of opinion the choice against using them, for a preference to another shaft. It seems odd that the main reason you are against them is because they actually do what they claim and reduce some of the many variables in pool and that is to be considered a bad thng. This is what I am not getting.
Jw
sjm said:
How do you know that? What I mean is how do you know that they didn't do things to achieve consistency in their shotmaking that had the same result as a LD shaft?
I said earlier in the thread that some players used to put a little mark on their shafts so that it was always held in the same way when they were addressing the ball. I was buying a cue with this mark from a well known pro and I asked him why he did it. He told me that it was the "sweet spot" on the shaft with the purest hit.
But further to your comment, what if Lassiter and Mosconi had LD shafts? Would they have possibly been able to become better than they were? We will never know.
For what it's worth I do agree with you though. I think that the advantage is overstated since no one will do any really comprehensive testing to explain how the various factors affect deflection.
For example, what it Low Deflection anyway?
Meucci did a video that shows his shafts have the lowest deflection out of all the shafts tested. He also states several times that the butt construction affects deflection as well.
So my point is that NO ONE to my knowledge has quantified what amount of deflection is "acceptable" but they toss around terms like Low Deflection and High Deflection and attach it to marketingspeak like '25% lower than other shafts'.
Really?
How was the test done, what were the tips, ferrules, butts, weight of the cues, and so on? How much does any of this play into it?
I'd love to see an INDEPENDENT test done where all these questions are answered.
BUT as my friend and I were discussing on the plane this morning, the billiard industry is too small and hype prevails over substance in most cases. Not to say that Predator and others haven't done a lot of innovating in this area but consumers are asked to believe a lot without proof.
As far a proof goes though - Meucci makes a pretty convincing pitch in his videos. If I were someone who was obsessed with finding the LD holy grail then I surely ask other shaft makers why their products performed so much worse than Meucci's.
Luther and Willie
I may be getting off the topic of this thread a bit, but can you expand on why you think Luther Lassiter was the best potter and Willie Mosconi was the best ball position player?
I know of Willie's big straight pool run, but what other evidence are you relying on for those opinions.
Colin ~ Just interested, not challenging the claim.
sjm,sjm said:
I may be getting off the topic of this thread a bit, but can you expand on why you think Luther Lassiter was the best potter and Willie Mosconi was the best ball position player?
I know of Willie's big straight pool run, but what other evidence are you relying on for those opinions.
Colin ~ Just interested, not challenging the claim.
Last edited:
Well, I am right at 60 years old. I played by far my best pool with a Brunswick house cue. Back then, we never thought about "low deflection", etc. We just tried to find the straightest house cue we could find. I guess we did have a "sweet spot" in mind, though, because we would make sure that if the cue had a slight warp, we would turn the warp up on crucial shots.
When I returned to pool around 9-10 years ago after a 25 or so year hiatus, I did not play with a Predator or other low deflection shaft. I played with an old Meucci Original, and played with a Southwest for a couple years until an a--hole knocked it over and broke my favorite shaft. It took me a 6 month wait and $275 to replace the shaft, so I put the cue away.
When I put the SW away, I decided I would play with a simple sneaky again, and I picked up an early Predator SP with the early 314 shaft. At that time, I still had no idea what "low-deflection" meant or was about. I had not found AZB at that time, and no one I knew knew anything about "low deflection" and what it all meant. All I knew was that I liked the way the shaft played, and I could control the cue ball pretty well with it. All things being the same, I would have still been playing with the SW shaft, but the replacement shaft did not feel the same to me as the one that was broke felt.
I guess I said all that to get to this point. If you don't know a shaft has "low deflection", etc, what makes a person stick to one (Predator, OB, Tiger, McD I, etc)? For me, it was consistency of play.
I get to handle a lot of cues, and I enjoy hitting with most of them. What I have found to be true for me is that I can put the Predator shaft on pretty much any butt, and I can play with it. I can't do the same with standard shafts from different cuemakers. There are just too many tapers, ferrules, tips, etc. All I feel that I gain from the shaft is consistency of play.
Joe
When I returned to pool around 9-10 years ago after a 25 or so year hiatus, I did not play with a Predator or other low deflection shaft. I played with an old Meucci Original, and played with a Southwest for a couple years until an a--hole knocked it over and broke my favorite shaft. It took me a 6 month wait and $275 to replace the shaft, so I put the cue away.
When I put the SW away, I decided I would play with a simple sneaky again, and I picked up an early Predator SP with the early 314 shaft. At that time, I still had no idea what "low-deflection" meant or was about. I had not found AZB at that time, and no one I knew knew anything about "low deflection" and what it all meant. All I knew was that I liked the way the shaft played, and I could control the cue ball pretty well with it. All things being the same, I would have still been playing with the SW shaft, but the replacement shaft did not feel the same to me as the one that was broke felt.
I guess I said all that to get to this point. If you don't know a shaft has "low deflection", etc, what makes a person stick to one (Predator, OB, Tiger, McD I, etc)? For me, it was consistency of play.
I get to handle a lot of cues, and I enjoy hitting with most of them. What I have found to be true for me is that I can put the Predator shaft on pretty much any butt, and I can play with it. I can't do the same with standard shafts from different cuemakers. There are just too many tapers, ferrules, tips, etc. All I feel that I gain from the shaft is consistency of play.
Joe
Last edited:
Having seen Bob Meucci do his robot test in person I do not need to see his videos. Bob did his radial pull test on a laminated shaft that Joe Sanko had finished from a blank that I had made. Bob held it up and said that since it was a pie segmented shaft it would have a higher percentage of change radially than one of his.... It did not and Bob had to eat his words. Then Bob put one of his shafts in his robot, fired it off and took the numbers. Then he loaded Joes shaft, making comments all the while that the laminated shaft would have more deflection. Fired it off and you could see that it hit closer to the aim point. So then Bob says, well, now you take that number and multiple it by ???, some number over 1, I don't remember as this was some years ago, it was something like 1.6, and by golly, look, it now has more deflection than his shaft.
If you haven't figured out what's wrong with this... where it hits is where it hits. There is no correction number because it was a laminated shaft. But Bob convinced most in the crowd that the laminated shaft did not do as well as his.
I would not give you 2 cents for Bob's videos or believe anything that he said on them... Just my humble opinion.
If you haven't figured out what's wrong with this... where it hits is where it hits. There is no correction number because it was a laminated shaft. But Bob convinced most in the crowd that the laminated shaft did not do as well as his.
I would not give you 2 cents for Bob's videos or believe anything that he said on them... Just my humble opinion.
bdcues said:
I don't disagree with you. That's why an independent testing body is needed.
Here is the way I used to play it when I sold Bunjee Jump cues. Every once in a while I would get another jump cue maker at the demo table asking me to allow them to let their customer compare their jump cue with the Bunjee. Now, although this request is slightly tacky, it's not entirely unfair as the customer is interested in finding the best product. So my thinking was quite straightforward on the matter, one of three things was likely to happen; 1. the cue would perform worse which was good for Bunjee. 2. the cue would perform the same which (at the time) was also good for Bunjee because we had the lowest price. or 3. The cue would perform better which gave me an opportunity to see WHY and figure out how to improve the Bunjee. I figured that was an appropriate trade off for allowing them to use my booth and demo table to sell their wares when they didn't want or couldn't afford a booth.
So I can't really understand Bob's actions. If I were him I'd have bought one of your shafts and tried to figure it out. But I have seen him in action and can certainly understand how you feel about it.
My only point was though that regardless of Bob's words - what about the video itself? To me it looks as though the same action is being performed each time. Although it's not independent, the variables aren't listed, and multiple shots weren't shown with each cue to get an average, it still shows remarkable differences in results from what appears to be the same action each time.
Can anyone dissect the video and explain why Bob's shafts appeared to deflect less?
One person sent me a PM and said that because the test was only measuring where the object ball landed that it was really measuring swerve and not deflection. My thought on that comment is that if the action is the same then the results are still valid because the force impetus is repeatable. So even if the claimed numbers like "150% more deflection" aren't really talking about deflection the result is however that one shaft performed better than another, agree or disagree?
For the record and for FULL DISCLOSURE - at this time I have a dog in this hunt as Fury has just released the Extreme pie laminated shaft for the Evolution series of cues. So I am very interested in any way to measure and get quantifiable numbers that we can base claims on. The way I sell the Extreme shaft now is the way I sell all cues - try it out and if you like it buy it if you don't, don't. I will say that we made over 30 models before settling on the one that we are delivering now.
Yes, there are stiff LD shafts, but LD shafts also jump like white boys.
pj
chgo
poolpro said:
Jw,
Here you have convinced me that my logic was bad and, in fact, that yours is relevant. I never change my opinion or point of view easily but what you wrote made me get the point and change my mind.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Have a nice day,
David
poohkiller said:
Wow, that doesn't happen terribly often in these parts!:grin:
Actually, thank you for having an open mind and the ability to digest new information and points of view. It is fantastic to see an openess to re evaluate what we think and why. This is the mark of intelligence.
There are many varied opinions on all kinds of things. Sometimes it is hard to wade through all the bs and agendas to get to the real meat of things. It is an ongoing process that should never have an end.
I sincerely appreciate your comments.
Jw
RBC said:
Here's a link to a video of the fouette shot. I have a LD shaft and can perform this shot without much difficulty.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=111762&highlight=fouette
Here's the direct link to the video:Poolfiend said:
Here's the definition from my online glossary:
fouette shot (pronounced "fwet-TAY"): a shot that uses tip offset (i.e., English) and cue deflection to avoid a double-hit when there is a small gap between the cue ball and object ball. A fast, full stroke is used so the cue deflects away while the cue ball clears.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
JoeyA said:The next time I miscue and smack the cue ball with my ferrule and my opponent complains, I will whine loudly, "That was a fouette shot. Didn't you see the cue ball spinning?"
JoeyA
Haha, imagine that? I can barely get anyone from league to recognize a double-hit, I'll try pulling that one out.
mantis99 said:
Hey mantiss, nice to see you again!
I have to admit that is probably the only down side. Although if you have already learned the game with a regular shaft, you can switch back and forth with a bit of an adjustment.
If you were going to play an important match I would assume that you would make an effort to have your cue (LD or not) with you anyway, at which point the issue disappears.
As had been stated before. ALL cues deflect. You will have to adjust ( to more or less) everytime you change cues or tips on the same cue. Adjusting from a LD shaft to another one is an adjustment you have already made before if you have borrowed a friends cue, or played with a house cue or whatever.
The nice thing about the LD shafts is that they are more consistant from shot to shot at least, than a standard shaft. A standard one piece shaft can deflect a certain amount when the cue is held with the grain going horizontally and then on the next shot if the cue is turned and the grain is vertical can have considerably more or less deflection than on the first shot.
I actually think the radial consistency is more important than the actual deflection rating.
Jw