Why do I feel like I get more CB action with a whippy shaft?

[SK Custom Cues]

A skinnier shaft flicks the tip through the cue ball on off center hits. A thicker shaft pushes it more directly.

I can get much better results using english with a skinnier shaft, especially using an ivory ferrule and a good tip.

Deflection is your friend, just the same as the center of the table. The sooner you master it, (and normal shafts) the more fun pool will be.

 

[Fatboy]

Bob Meucci figured this out over 30 years ago. Beginning players would try a draw shot with a Meucci, and they could draw the ball further than they could with other cues. He sold Meucci cues like crazy.

The only problem was, once they figured out how to use side spin, the cues deflected too much.

i remember that from 25 years ago, I had a friend Tony White he had a Meucci from 80 or 81 with the whippiest shafts I ever saw, he was a big man with a big 9ball break how those shafts flexed so much amazed me at the time, he could play too! He could get the juice on his rock with that cue with little effort(nothing by todays standards) it was fun to watch.


I get more juice on the ball with a OB1 than any other shaft I have tried. I dont play with one, but its fun to play around with to see what can be done. well what i can do with it, they are great shafts and a great company, I like Royce the owner, and reccomend their products 100%


On the topic of super juice-Mike Massey can spin his rock as good as anyone ever, I have been lucky enough to play with his cue, for an extended period of time on more than one ocassion. Its a 62 or 63" Standard McD-just real long, the shaft and butt are equal in lenght. His taper isnt anything magic. its the man behind the cue plain and simple. thats the biggest factor. I can get more on the rock with my cue than Mikes just because I'm used to my cue. When Mike uses my cue it was too short and didnt work for him. He is world class i'm not and that was clear too with the same tools, we had a few cues out one time.


I like Mike Massey stories, he is just the best guy, and his lovely wife Francine is nice too. Its a treat to have Mike stop by when he is in town,

 

[3kushn]

I agree with this, but there could be something else involved for some players. If the shaft is flexible, the cue could bend on the stroke. A stiff cue would hit where expected, but a flexible cue might hit farther off center (or not as far). This could give the impression of significantly more action with one cue.

But there might be something else again involved. I recently changed out my (very short) ferrule and tip, for a new (very short) ferrule and different kind of tip, and I started getting much better apparent spin. I suspect the mechanical integrity of the old equipment had degraded. The point of this story is that it is really hard to compare cues or even shafts or even the same shaft if various variables are allowed to change.

Like many things in life and this game we let our minds get in our own way. I may be stumbling over myself here.

I don't have scientific evidence only what I've experienced. Before paying for my cue I was given the chance to test it out for quite a while with the purpose of deciding on what taper I wanted among others. 3 shafts with 3 tapers were sent one stiffer than the next. 2 were basically Cones and the other was a modified cone/European taper. Just a very slight amount of whip compared to the Cones. Although they all hit very well the determining factor turned out to be amounts of applied English. My test was looking at 3rd rail English. I determined that the modified European taper gave me more English off the 3rd rail. I believe you'll may agree, Bob the angle a ball takes off the 3rd rail is easy to see, compare and quantified by noting the 4th rail contact point.

This is my theory on testing this. Please comment if I'm just full of it.

If amounts of English applied is compared by simply hitting 1 rail and noting how far left or right the CB goes IMO is not a good test. It's more of a table test. For instance on a good 3C table with new cloth and balls using max spin, CB on the spot, and hitting the center diamond on the short, you're 3rd rail will be 1/2 diamond from the corner no matter what cue or shaft you have. But if you note how long the English stays on the ball it's more of a test of the cue and shaft. ie 3rd rail angle/4th rail contact point.

 

[poolplayer2093]

...just throwing it out there.

Everyone praises a stiff hitting, tight-grained shaft as a selling point, and yet I have this OB-1, taken down, and an old (my first) Lucasi shaft with a 12mm tip and a disgustingly sandpapered taper that draws full table for days.

Yeah it's the archer, not the arrow, but is there any truth to this? Or is this all just an isolated incident.

yeah i bet you can but a whippy shaft/cue is going to be more inconsistent. the harder you hit the CB the more the cue'll buckle which means that's something else to compensate more. even if a stiff cue deflects more it'll deflect the same amount (or close to it) no matter how hard/soft you hit the CB

 

[iusedtoberich]

We had a good thread on this topic a while back started by Patrick Johnson. It turned into a monster thread...

Anyway, he had a very simple test where you hit the cue ball one rail with spin and note where it ends up. You would then do this with several cues and compare results.

To control the experiment with methods we could all use (free):
1. A centennial object ball was used as the cue ball, with the instruction to hit it on the tiny triangle it has by the numbers. After the shot, only if the chalk mark was EXACTLY on the triangle would the shot count.

2. Interfering object balls were set up surrounding the path of the cue ball. These insured the cue ball took the same path prior to the 1st rail every time. This also meant for different squirt cues you had to aim your line differently.

The above two ensured that: "The strike point of the cueball and its path before the 1st rail were all exactly the same"

I was the only one who did the experiment, after about 50 pages or arguing. I used 4 or 5 different cues, including my predator playing cue, predator break cue (leather tip), house cue off the wall, break cue with phenolic tip. All the cues were completely different in stiffness, hit, feel, look, tip, diameter, taper, smell, etc.

They all returned the cue ball to the exactly same spot on the second rail. They all put the exact same amount of english on the cue ball.

I encourage anyone to look up that thread and see the setup and try it yourself with 10 cues and convince yourself of the results. I'm not posting the link, because if you are serious about trying it, instead of just theorizing about why one cue is perceived to spin more than another, you can do the work and look it up. The reason I say this is I don't want to be involved in another 50 page thread. ANd based on that last thread, people here just like to write, and not try at the table.

Good day.

 

[dr_dave]

Great post! I've done similar experiments and have gotten similar results. The chalk mark doesn't lie.

As I point out here, I think differences in tip size and shape, and in the amount of squirt, might contribute to why some people perceive more "juice" with a low-squirt, whippy, shaft.

Regards,
Dave

We had a good thread on this topic a while back started by Patrick Johnson. It turned into a monster thread...

Anyway, he had a very simple test where you hit the cue ball one rail with spin and note where it ends up. You would then do this with several cues and compare results.

To control the experiment with methods we could all use (free):
1. A centennial object ball was used as the cue ball, with the instruction to hit it on the tiny triangle it has by the numbers. After the shot, only if the chalk mark was EXACTLY on the triangle would the shot count.

2. Interfering object balls were set up surrounding the path of the cue ball. These insured the cue ball took the same path prior to the 1st rail every time. This also meant for different squirt cues you had to aim your line differently.

The above two ensured that: "The strike point of the cueball and its path before the 1st rail were all exactly the same"

I was the only one who did the experiment, after about 50 pages or arguing. I used 4 or 5 different cues, including my predator playing cue, predator break cue (leather tip), house cue off the wall, break cue with phenolic tip. All the cues were completely different in stiffness, hit, feel, look, tip, diameter, taper, smell, etc.

They all returned the cue ball to the exactly same spot on the second rail. They all put the exact same amount of english on the cue ball.

I encourage anyone to look up that thread and see the setup and try it yourself with 10 cues and convince yourself of the results. I'm not posting the link, because if you are serious about trying it, instead of just theorizing about why one cue is perceived to spin more than another, you can do the work and look it up. The reason I say this is I don't want to be involved in another 50 page thread. ANd based on that last thread, people here just like to write, and not try at the table.

Good day.

 

[3kushn]

Great post! I've done similar experiments and have gotten similar results. The chalk mark doesn't lie.

As I point out here, I think differences in tip size and shape, and in the amount of squirt, might contribute to why some people perceive more "juice" with a low-squirt, whippy, shaft.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave,

My little experiement all the tips were the same size and shape. I did nothing to them before trying them. The only difference was the taper.

 

[Cornerman]

...just throwing it out there.

Everyone praises a stiff hitting, tight-grained shaft as a selling point, and yet I have this OB-1, taken down, and an old (my first) Lucasi shaft with a 12mm tip and a disgustingly sandpapered taper that draws full table for days.

.

Another thing to consider is how you bridge and stroke the shaft. When you say "whippy" there is an assumption of a longer delayed taper compared to a tapered shaft. Some people get the cue through their hands better with less possiblity of stroke break down compared to with a more tapered which may break their bridge hand open quicker than they feel comfortable.

So, although I don't think the whippiness or lack thereof in of itself is a contributing factor, I think how the player plays with that type of shaft is everything.

Fred

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Bob:
...there could be something else involved for some players. If the shaft is flexible, the cue could bend on the stroke. A stiff cue would hit where expected, but a flexible cue might hit farther off center (or not as far).

Are you talking about the shaft bending before hitting the CB, just from the acceleration?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Another thing to consider is how you bridge and stroke the shaft. When you say "whippy" there is an assumption of a longer delayed taper compared to a tapered shaft. Some people get the cue through their hands better with less possiblity of stroke break down compared to with a more tapered which may break their bridge hand open quicker than they feel comfortable.

So, although I don't think the whippiness or lack thereof in of itself is a contributing factor, I think how the player plays with that type of shaft is everything.

Fred

Good points. Also, the cues being compared could have different weights and balances. These and other factors could also influence the stroke. Also, if the amount of squirt is different, the aim would need to be adjusted for a fair "juice" comparison.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

...there could be something else involved for some players. If the shaft is flexible, the cue could bend on the stroke. A stiff cue would hit where expected, but a flexible cue might hit farther off center (or not as far).

Are you talking about the shaft bending before hitting the CB, just from the acceleration?

PJ,

I think Bob was just pointing out that there could be other factors that might explain what some people might be observing. It seems like you might be implying this effect would be negligible. If you are, I agree (although, I haven't done tests or calculations to verify this opinion).

Bob, do you think this effect could be large enough to make a statistical difference with typical equipment and typical strokes?

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

My little experiement all the tips were the same size and shape. I did nothing to them before trying them. The only difference was the taper.

Did the cues have the same weight and balance? Were the CB speeds the same for each shot. Did you adjust for squirt perfectly on each shot for each cue? Was the chalk mark in the same spot on the CB with each shot?

My point with the questions isn't to get answers, but to point out that there are lots of factors that would need to be controlled for a meaningful experiment.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I don't think we can explain all of the experiences reported, but several people have pointed out some possible explanations.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

Are you talking about the shaft bending before hitting the CB, just from the acceleration?

pj
chgo

Yes, from teeter/totter acceleration, and for some players swoop acceleration (side-to-side). If the back hand twists, it can bend the stick.

I think that bend during or after contact is probably not important to the amount of spin produced for any standard cue -- I'm not including 1/8-inch titanium rods, or anything else people would probably not recognize as a cue stick. But if someone really does want to link flexibility and spin, an extreme case may be what's needed to start.

 

[3kushn]

Did the cues have the same weight and balance? Were the CB speeds the same for each shot. Did you adjust for squirt perfectly on each shot for each cue? Was the chalk mark in the same spot on the CB with each shot?

My point with the questions isn't to get answers, but to point out that there are lots of factors that would need to be controlled for a meaningful experiment.

Thank you for sharing your experiences. I don't think we can explain all of the experiences reported, but several people have pointed out some possible explanations.

Regards,
Dave

I don't want to beat a dead horse. It looks like I may decieved myself. Just so you know the only thing that changed was the shafts. All 3 shafts were used on the same butt. No I didn't check chalk marks but is did plenty of test shots with all shafts over about 60 days. That doesn't prove a thing. Much of the game is mental and maybe some illness mixed in so I'm sticking with my story for now.