PDA

View Full Version : Low deflection shafts - Benefits and Drawbacks



Snapshot9
07-06-2006, 07:24 AM
I have always shot with regular shafts, although I have tried a few low deflection shafts.

Bob Owen, partner and cuemaker for Shurtz Custom Cues, makes 2 types of low deflection shafts. One is comparable to a 314 shaft, and the other I don't know what to compare it to. The shaft is cored and foam filled, etc. making for lower deflection of shots. He is shooting with a cue he made (beutiful cue - ivory, ebony, brass edging around inlays, leather wrap) that has a 314 like shaft on it. I shot with it. It felt a little foreign to me at first, but the aiming did seem a little easier. I could tell it would take some practice to get used to shooting all types of shots with it, and for spinning shots.

BUT ... and this is a big but for me, the balance of the stick was thrown off because the shaft was lighter than it would have been, taking away from the cue being forward balanced. Actually, I like to feel a good even distribution of weight of the cue inbetween my bridge hand and butt hand, sort of in the center, and this cue, with its 314 type shaft felt more back weighted, but at the top of the wrap, not the bottom or the butt sleeve. The problem was, that I felt this 'offset' of balance on every shot when I shot a ball, and it bothered me more than adjusting for normal deflection using a regular shaft.

Bob said the cue would have sold for about $1,600 new, but that he would sell it to me for $1,100 since he had been using it for a year or so, and I am a friend, and he would clean it up and refinish it. If I had the money, I would buy it, but I would want a regular shaft for it too.

No one ever talks about the balance effects to the cue by using low deflection shafts.

How do you feel about it?

Cornerman
07-06-2006, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Snapshot9:</font><hr> BUT ... and this is a big but for me, the balance of the stick was thrown off because the shaft was lighter than it would have been, taking away from the cue being forward balanced. <hr /></blockquote>I cannot imagine the balance being "thrown off." There is so little weight being taken off of a very low weight portion relative to the rest of the stick.


Fred

Sid_Vicious
07-06-2006, 08:06 AM
This topic will get me to get the triple beams out to weigh my std and low deflection shafts. All in all though, the local shafts made(low deflection) that I've personally played with, and many, many are customized by the builder using only caliper readings and recognizable content such as joint material and inlays, no butts taken for balance-matching...I and the majority of the new owners of these low deflection shafts eat up the new hit and play with nothing else. If there's a balance difference, it's not apparent to me. Whatever it is that makes these things hit so well(IMO), washes out the balance issue, if it truly exists in an amount enough to measure. Just my thought here, but I think maybe the designated change of hit could also eliminate, or nullify the possible balance offset, if there is one...sid

Bob_Jewett
07-06-2006, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Snapshot9:</font><hr> ... I like to feel a good even distribution of weight of the cue inbetween my bridge hand and butt hand, ...

No one ever talks about the balance effects to the cue by using low deflection shafts.

How do you feel about it?
<hr /></blockquote>
I think that you can notice only one thing about the balance, and that is the balance point (or center of gravity) of the stick. I think it is very difficult for you to tell the difference between a stick with the weight uniformly distributed along the length and one with the weight only in the ferrule and bumper. In fact, if cues could be constructed like the latter, they would be more stable (but, of course, squirt a lot).

It's incorrect to refer to the shafts as "low deflection." In fact, low squirt shafts deflect off the cue ball more than high squirt shafts. It is better to use the term "squirt" which you may not like, but it is unambiguous.

walt8880
07-06-2006, 11:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> It's incorrect to refer to the shafts as "low deflection." In fact, low squirt shafts deflect off the cue ball more than high squirt shafts. It is better to use the term "squirt" which you may not like, but it is unambiguous. <hr /></blockquote>

Correct you are Bob. I think a lot of people say the words "low deflection" without understanding what is really going on. Actually it is a "high deflection" shaft which results in lower deflection or squirt of the cue ball. These shafts whip like a wet noodle and people call them "low deflection" shafts.

Fran Crimi
07-07-2006, 06:01 AM
As much as you are right, I don't think the term 'low deflection shaft' is going away anytime soon. Probably best to just make it clear that 'low deflection' refers to the cue ball's path after contact rather than the shaft as you did.

I have a question. Is there a relationship between shaft whippiness and shaft deflection?

Fran

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 07:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote walt8880:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> It's incorrect to refer to the shafts as "low deflection." In fact, low squirt shafts deflect off the cue ball more than high squirt shafts. It is better to use the term "squirt" which you may not like, but it is unambiguous. <hr /></blockquote>

Correct you are Bob. I think a lot of people say the words "low deflection" without understanding what is really going on. Actually it is a "high deflection" shaft which results in lower deflection or squirt of the cue ball. These shafts whip like a wet noodle and people call them "low deflection" shafts. <hr /></blockquote>

Good description. Here's my summary:

"low deflection shaft" =
"low cue ball deflection shaft" =
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end =
large cue shaft flex (i.e., "high deflection" /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif of cue tip) with an off-center hit

Like Bob, I also prefer the term "squirt" over "cue ball deflection." I certainly prefer "low squirt cue" over "low deflection cue" (because of the ambiguous meaning of "deflection"). I also prefer "small" instead of "low" because that can also be ambiguous. Although, as Fran points out, it's not easy to change the terminology people use when it is so ingrained. As long as people are clear, it really doesn't matter. When I hear "low deflection cue," I just assume the implication is "small squirt shaft."

Regards,
Dave

Qtec
07-07-2006, 07:19 AM
If a shaft is too whippy it will cause the QB to squirt more. There is a realationship.
Snooker cues are supposed to be stiff and low sqiirt but if you see the contact in slo-mo, the cue actually makes an S-form on a power shot.
The details? Maybe Fred or Bob will jump in. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I think overall, it becomes a question of learning to play with the cue rather than the qualities of the Q making the difference in one's game.
Find a Q that suits you [ wieght , balance etc] and learn to play with it. Thats my advice.
You have to commit youtrself to a Q otherwise you will be changing shafts and Qs to eternity, desperately looking for the 'right'Q.!

Qtec.

Eric.
07-07-2006, 08:44 AM
Here's another thought-

If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less deflection? How much more accuracy are you gaining?

Using another example, if you miss the ball by 4 inches, does it really matter if another shaft cuts the miss down to 3 inches?


Eric

Bob_Jewett
07-07-2006, 09:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ... I have a question. Is there a relationship between shaft whippiness and shaft deflection?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>
Not a clear one that I have seen demonstrated. In theory, a shaft that wiggles easily to the side should have less squirt, all other things being equal. In practice, all other things are not kept equal and you see shafts that are described as very stiff and very whippy that both have low squirt.

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 10:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less deflection? How much more accuracy are you gaining?<hr /></blockquote>
25%! I think anybody would prefer to be 25% more accurate. Now, this is assuming you aren't already adjusting for squirt with your aim. With low squirt cues, you don't have to adjust as much, and because the amount of squirt varies with tip offset and speed (although not everybody agrees with this), the less squirt ... the better.

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
07-07-2006, 10:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less deflection? How much more accuracy are you gaining?<hr /></blockquote>
25%! I think anybody would prefer to be 25% more accurate. Now, this is assuming you aren't already adjusting for squirt with your aim. With low squirt cues, you don't have to adjust as much, and because the amount of squirt varies with tip offset and speed (although not everybody agrees with this), the less squirt ... the better.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave,

I think most people are aware of the "benefits" of a low squirt shaft ie Predator. The 25% I was referring to was Predator's claim that it reduces deflection by 25%. My point was that if the contact rage on the OB was, say, 1 MM, what difference would a 25% gain in accuracy make?


Eric

Bob_Jewett
07-07-2006, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less (squirt)? How much more accuracy are you gaining?...<hr /></blockquote>
There are some shots and some sticks in which the compensation is three times larger for the higher-squirt stick. For a long, thin hit with max inside english, you have to aim on the wrong side of the object ball with some sticks. I think such sticks are broken.

Of course, if you restrict your game to use only 1/4-tip of english, squirt is of less concern. I think many beginners/intermediates never learn to spin the ball because of the unhappy results that their squirty sticks give them.

Eric.
07-07-2006, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less (squirt)? How much more accuracy are you gaining?...<hr /></blockquote>
There are some shots and some sticks in which the compensation is three times larger for the higher-squirt stick. For a long, thin hit with max inside english, you have to aim on the wrong side of the object ball with some sticks. I think such sticks are broken.

Of course, if you restrict your game to use only 1/4-tip of english, squirt is of less concern. I think many beginners/intermediates never learn to spin the ball because of the unhappy results that their squirty sticks give them. <hr /></blockquote>

What I was saying is that if, for example the contact range to make the OB is 1MM wide and in your example, my stick squirts a half inch (on a firm hit to minimize swerve/curve), will a 25% improvement make that much of a difference on making the OB?


Eric

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 12:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>If the range of the contact point to make the ball is, say, about 1mm, does it really matter if you have 25% less deflection? How much more accuracy are you gaining?<hr /></blockquote>
25%! I think anybody would prefer to be 25% more accurate. Now, this is assuming you aren't already adjusting for squirt with your aim. With low squirt cues, you don't have to adjust as much, and because the amount of squirt varies with tip offset and speed (although not everybody agrees with this), the less squirt ... the better.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave,

I think most people are aware of the "benefits" of a low squirt shaft ie Predator. The 25% I was referring to was Predator's claim that it reduces deflection by 25%. My point was that if the contact rage on the OB was, say, 1 MM, what difference would a 25% gain in accuracy make?<hr /></blockquote>
Eric,

I think my answer is still the same. Although, for a shot requiring such precision (1 mm), one might be better off using a center ball hit (regardless of how it might affect position control), where there would be no squirt at all.

I think a better answer to your question is: if a shot requires 1 mm of accuracy, you should probably consider a different shot (or avoid English like the plague). 1 mm of contact point accuracy for a typical shot (e.g., 4 feet between the CB and OB) would require 0.005 degrees of angle accuracy! That's too much to expect even from Efren.

Regards,
Dave

Fran Crimi
07-07-2006, 12:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"low deflection shaft" =
"low cue ball deflection shaft" =
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end =
large cue shaft flex (i.e., "high deflection" of cue tip) with an off-center hit
<hr /></blockquote>


So are you saying that a low cue ball deflection shaft = a whippy shaft?

Fran

Fran Crimi
07-07-2006, 12:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"low deflection shaft" =
"low cue ball deflection shaft" =
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end =
large cue shaft flex (i.e., "high deflection" of cue tip) with an off-center hit
<hr /></blockquote>


Dave, so are you saying that a low cue ball deflection shaft must be a whippy shaft?

Fran

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 12:39 PM
Fran,

I agree with Bob's posting (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=229845&amp;page =&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) on this matter. Also, a past posting of mine concerning end mass and stiffness (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=176714&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) is also pertinent. I don't think I have anything else to add without first having more experimental data and physical understanding.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
"low deflection shaft" =
"low cue ball deflection shaft" =
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end =
large cue shaft flex (i.e., "high deflection" of cue tip) with an off-center hit<hr /></blockquote>
So are you saying that a low cue ball deflection shaft = a whippy shaft?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
"low deflection shaft" =
"low cue ball deflection shaft" =
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end =
large cue shaft flex (i.e., "high deflection" of cue tip) with an off-center hit<hr /></blockquote>
Dave, so are you saying that a low cue ball deflection shaft must be a whippy shaft?
Fran <hr /></blockquote>
Fran,

See my answer here (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=229859&amp;page =0&amp;view=&amp;sb=&amp;o=&amp;vc=1). /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dave

Eric.
07-07-2006, 12:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>

Dave,

I think most people are aware of the "benefits" of a low squirt shaft ie Predator. The 25% I was referring to was Predator's claim that it reduces deflection by 25%. My point was that if the contact rage on the OB was, say, 1 MM, what difference would a 25% gain in accuracy make?<hr /></blockquote>
Eric,

I think my answer is still the same. Although, for a shot requiring such precision (1 mm), one might be better off using a center ball hit (regardless of how it might affect position control), where there would be no squirt at all.

I think a better answer to your question is: if a shot requires 1 mm of accuracy, you should probably consider a different shot (or avoid English like the plague). 1 mm of contact point accuracy for a typical shot (e.g., 4 feet between the CB and OB) would require 0.005 degrees of angle accuracy! That's too much to expect even from Efren.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Lemme see if I can simplify this. I'll use pictures.

Let's say you have this shot:

START(
%Ai9I2%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%I L7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%PZ2V8%Qs3B0%Wh5K0%X[1V5%Yh3J3
%ZZ6U6%[q8D7%\k1H5
)END

To pocket the 1 ball into pocket A, you can only contact it with the CB in a certain area. The contact area is very small, but there is a tiny bit on leeway because the pocket is bigger than the OB.

My point is that on most shots, the contact point leeway is very small, unless the ball is a hanger. Do you really think a 25% improvement in aim accuracy on this shot, for example, will make a difference worth noting?


Eric

Fran Crimi
07-07-2006, 12:52 PM
I'm confused. What does this mean if it doesn't necessarily mean that low squirt must be whippy?

[ QUOTE ]
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end <hr /></blockquote>

Fran~~~ P.S. That was a double post before. I don't know why it did that.

Jal
07-07-2006, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>...The 25% I was referring to was Predator's claim that it reduces deflection by 25%...<hr /></blockquote>

It looks like Predator uses some creative Mathematik to arrive at their squirt reduction figures. On one page they claim 28% for their original 314, and 38% for the Z shaft. But on another they show the following sideways movement over 50" of cueball travel:

conventional: 59.6 mm

314: 46.4 mm

Z: 43.0 mm

When I do the calculation I get:

314:

100 x (59.6 - 46.4)/59.6 = 22%

Z:

100 x (59.6 - 43.0)/59.6 = 28%

When they do the calculation they get:

314:

100 x (59.6 - 46.4)/46.4 = 28%

Z:

100 x (59.6 - 43.0)/43.0 = 38.6%


I'm shocked!

Jim

(But it should be noted that they did round off that 38.6% to 38%.)

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 01:06 PM
Eric,

Thanks for the picture ... I like pictures. However, I think my answer is still the same.

Let's say you are using a low squirt cue to pocket your example shot, and your accuracy is barely good enough to make the shot almost every time (but you are using the whole pocket over multiple attempts). If you were to switch to a high squirt cue, and your stoking accuracy remains the same, and you are not compensating for the extra squirt, you would start missing the shot periodically. For example, if using right English, if your aim is already a little off to the left, the added squirt will make the cue ball go even further left, and the object ball will miss the pocket. In other words, with less squirt, the small aiming error alone was not enough to make you miss the shot.

I hope that is clear, but if it isn't, let me know and maybe I can come up with some pictures (or even write an article about it for BD).

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>

Dave,

I think most people are aware of the "benefits" of a low squirt shaft ie Predator. The 25% I was referring to was Predator's claim that it reduces deflection by 25%. My point was that if the contact rage on the OB was, say, 1 MM, what difference would a 25% gain in accuracy make?<hr /></blockquote>
Eric,

I think my answer is still the same. Although, for a shot requiring such precision (1 mm), one might be better off using a center ball hit (regardless of how it might affect position control), where there would be no squirt at all.

I think a better answer to your question is: if a shot requires 1 mm of accuracy, you should probably consider a different shot (or avoid English like the plague). 1 mm of contact point accuracy for a typical shot (e.g., 4 feet between the CB and OB) would require 0.005 degrees of angle accuracy! That's too much to expect even from Efren.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Lemme see if I can simplify this. I'll use pictures.

Let's say you have this shot:

START(
%Ai9I2%BL7P8%CJ5O4%DL7N1%EM7P1%FK6P1%GK6N8%HM7N8%I L7O4%JK6M5
%KJ5P7%LJ5N2%MK6Q4%NJ5R0%OJ5M0%PZ2V8%Qs3B0%Wh5K0%X[1V5%Yh3J3
%ZZ6U6%[q8D7%\k1H5
)END

To pocket the 1 ball into pocket A, you can only contact it with the CB in a certain area. The contact area is very small, but there is a tiny bit on leeway because the pocket is bigger than the OB.

My point is that on most shots, the contact point leeway is very small, unless the ball is a hanger. Do you really think a 25% improvement in aim accuracy on this shot, for example, will make a difference worth noting?


Eric <hr /></blockquote>

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 01:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> I'm confused. What does this mean if it doesn't necessarily mean that low squirt must be whippy?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>
"low squirt shaft" =
"low end-mass" shaft =
flexible (AKA "whippy", compliant, not stiff, "like a wet noodle") shaft end <hr /></blockquote>
Fran~~~ P.S. That was a double post before. I don't know why it did that.<hr /></blockquote>
If you drill out the end of a shaft to reduce its end mass, like Predator does, the very end of the shaft also becomes less stiff (more whippy). However, I'm not sure the whole shaft or stick would be described as "whippy" to you or others. That's why I was careful to write "shaft end" when referring to flexibility.

I still don't know if a shaft described as "whippy" should necessarily exhibit less squirt than a shaft that is described as "stiff." As Bob pointed out, it is a complex tapestry (my words) to "keep all things the same."

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
07-07-2006, 01:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thanks for the picture ... I like pictures. However, I think my answer is still the same.

Let's say you are using a low squirt cue to pocket your example shot, and your accuracy is barely good enough to make the shot almost every time (but you are using the whole pocket over multiple attempts). If you were to switch to a high squirt cue, and your stoking accuracy remains the same, and you are not compensating for the extra squirt, you would start missing the shot periodically. For example, if using right English, if your aim is already a little off to the left, the added squirt will make the cue ball go even further left, and the object ball will miss the pocket. In other words, with less squirt, the small aiming error alone was not enough to make you miss the shot.

I hope that is clear, but if it isn't, let me know and maybe I can come up with some pictures (or even write an article about it for BD).

Regards,
Dave

<hr /></blockquote>

"and you are not compensating for the extra squirt"

That is the whole thing in a nutshell. You have to compensate for squirt with either cueshaft. By saying that the one shaft squirts "25%" less is deceiving. YOU STILL HAVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH YOUR CUE WILL SQUIRT.

To use an extreme example, let's say you have a full table shot. Let's say my stick squirts the CB 4" on that shot. Let's say your low squirt cue squirts 25% less. That would mean that I would have to compensate my aim by 4" and you would have to compensate by 3". Is the low squirt stick any more accurate? Well, if you write a scientific research paper on it, yes, the low squirt stick is more accurate but in the real world, you are still compensating for squirt. Anytime you have to compensate, it forces you to have to know your stick. IMO, that is the most improtant characteristic. Again, IMO, compensation is compensation. I don't feel that the person that has to judge 3" of squirt is necessarily better off than the person that has to judge 4" of squirt.


Eric

Bob_Jewett
07-07-2006, 02:13 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> ... Again, IMO, compensation is compensation. ... <hr /></blockquote>
No.

Consider the extreme. Suppose you had 45 degrees of squirt for a max english shot and 22 degrees for a medium english shot. Such a shaft would be unusable. For me, a shaft that squirts 2 degrees for a max english shot is also unusable because there are better alternatives.

Eric.
07-07-2006, 02:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> ... Again, IMO, compensation is compensation. ... <hr /></blockquote>
No.

Consider the extreme. Suppose you had 45 degrees of squirt for a max english shot and 22 degrees for a medium english shot. Such a shaft would be unusable. For me, a shaft that squirts 2 degrees for a max english shot is also unusable because there are better alternatives. <hr /></blockquote>

Let's say you have a shaft that squirts 1 degree. Are you better off with the shaft that squirts .75 degree instead?


Eric

Fran Crimi
07-07-2006, 03:38 PM
Okay, Thanks.

Fran

Bob_Jewett
07-07-2006, 05:45 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... Let's say you have a shaft that squirts 1 degree. Are you better off with the shaft that squirts .75 degree instead? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes, but in my experience the choice is between much wider variations than that, although some test data seems to show the variations are smaller.

A main point in the background is that if you want to play at the top level, you have to get your misses down to 1% or less. There are lots of factors that contribute to this. If a beginner miscues 2% of the time, it makes little difference to his game. If Earl were to miscue that often, it would be a disaster. Similarly, if you have to make a table-length thin cut with serious spin on the cue ball (for whatever reason), I think your chances of doing it well are better with a low-squirt shaft.

I suppose an exception is if a player shoots with backhand english. In that case, it is easiest if the pivot point (for the cue and the particular shot at hand) is at the bridge hand. Usually that requires a shaft with relatively high squirt.

Alfie
07-07-2006, 05:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Snapshot9:</font><hr> the balance of the stick was thrown off because the shaft was lighter than it would have been, taking away from the cue being forward balanced. <hr /></blockquote>I cannot imagine the balance being "thrown off." There is so little weight being taken off of a very low weight portion relative to the rest of the stick.<hr /></blockquote> I agree. Maybe that stick is just more butt end balanced than what Snapshot9 is used to, no matter what shaft is on it (i.e., with no resin coating, etc.)

Snapshot, is it cored through and through?

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 06:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thanks for the picture ... I like pictures. However, I think my answer is still the same.

Let's say you are using a low squirt cue to pocket your example shot, and your accuracy is barely good enough to make the shot almost every time (but you are using the whole pocket over multiple attempts). If you were to switch to a high squirt cue, and your stoking accuracy remains the same, and you are not compensating for the extra squirt, you would start missing the shot periodically. For example, if using right English, if your aim is already a little off to the left, the added squirt will make the cue ball go even further left, and the object ball will miss the pocket. In other words, with less squirt, the small aiming error alone was not enough to make you miss the shot.

I hope that is clear, but if it isn't, let me know and maybe I can come up with some pictures (or even write an article about it for BD).

Regards,
Dave

<hr /></blockquote>

"and you are not compensating for the extra squirt"

That is the whole thing in a nutshell. You have to compensate for squirt with either cueshaft. By saying that the one shaft squirts "25%" less is deceiving. YOU STILL HAVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH YOUR CUE WILL SQUIRT.

To use an extreme example, let's say you have a full table shot. Let's say my stick squirts the CB 4" on that shot. Let's say your low squirt cue squirts 25% less. That would mean that I would have to compensate my aim by 4" and you would have to compensate by 3". Is the low squirt stick any more accurate? Well, if you write a scientific research paper on it, yes, the low squirt stick is more accurate but in the real world, you are still compensating for squirt. Anytime you have to compensate, it forces you to have to know your stick. IMO, that is the most improtant characteristic. Again, IMO, compensation is compensation. I don't feel that the person that has to judge 3" of squirt is necessarily better off than the person that has to judge 4" of squirt.<hr /></blockquote>
I agree with your extreme example, and I still think my description of your previous example is also still valid. In other words, I think we are both correct in both examples. However, I still think less squirt is better (i.e., more forgiving, especially for mid range shots when one's compensation may not be very accurate). So 25% less squirt is still a good thing (although 50% or more would be even better).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 07:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... Let's say you have a shaft that squirts 1 degree. Are you better off with the shaft that squirts .75 degree instead? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes, but in my experience the choice is between much wider variations than that, although some test data seems to show the variations are smaller.

A main point in the background is that if you want to play at the top level, you have to get your misses down to 1% or less. There are lots of factors that contribute to this. If a beginner miscues 2% of the time, it makes little difference to his game. If Earl were to miscue that often, it would be a disaster. Similarly, if you have to make a table-length thin cut with serious spin on the cue ball (for whatever reason), I think your chances of doing it well are better with a low-squirt shaft.

I suppose an exception is if a player shoots with backhand english. In that case, it is easiest if the pivot point (for the cue and the particular shot at hand) is at the bridge hand. Usually that requires a shaft with relatively high squirt. <hr /></blockquote>

Amen. As usual, great post Bob!

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
07-07-2006, 07:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Okay, Thanks.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>
You are very welcome.

BTW, HSV 4.4, 4.5, and A.5 (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/high_speed_videos/index.html) are good visual examples that show how much the end of the cue shaft flexes and deflects for large offset shots.

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
07-10-2006, 08:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... Let's say you have a shaft that squirts 1 degree. Are you better off with the shaft that squirts .75 degree instead? <hr /></blockquote>
Yes, but in my experience the choice is between much wider variations than that, although some test data seems to show the variations are smaller.

A main point in the background is that if you want to play at the top level, you have to get your misses down to 1% or less. There are lots of factors that contribute to this. If a beginner miscues 2% of the time, it makes little difference to his game. If Earl were to miscue that often, it would be a disaster. Similarly, if you have to make a table-length thin cut with serious spin on the cue ball (for whatever reason), I think your chances of doing it well are better with a low-squirt shaft.

I suppose an exception is if a player shoots with backhand english. In that case, it is easiest if the pivot point (for the cue and the particular shot at hand) is at the bridge hand. Usually that requires a shaft with relatively high squirt. <hr /></blockquote>

Bob, you bring up some good points but IMO, blaming miscueing and attributing more accuracy with high spin shots to low squirt shafts is still unproven. I've yet to see any significant "proof" to the benefits. I have tried the low squirt shaft. I gave it a good 7 or 8 month run. I wound up going back to regular shafts. Fred Agnir tried a similar experiment. I think he came to the same conclusion I did.

Just one man's opinion, I don't think the low squirt shafts are the holy grail of Pool. IMO, any time you have to use judgemnt to compensate for deflection, it's more important to know your stick rather than whether it's low deflection or high deflection. If you have to compensate, say 1 inch to hit that tiny contact point or if you have to compensate 1.5 inches to hit the same tiny contact point, what's the difference? You still have to compensate. I don't think there are too many people on the planet that can say they are more accurate aiming 1 inch off the target vs 1.5 inches to curve a CB to hit the same tiny spot.


Eric

Jal
07-10-2006, 01:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... IMO, any time you have to use judgemnt to compensate for deflection, it's more important to know your stick rather than whether it's low deflection or high deflection. If you have to compensate, say 1 inch to hit that tiny contact point or if you have to compensate 1.5 inches to hit the same tiny contact point, what's the difference? You still have to compensate. I don't think there are too many people on the planet that can say they are more accurate aiming 1 inch off the target vs 1.5 inches to curve a CB to hit the same tiny spot...<hr /></blockquote>If you knew exactly how to adjust for every tip offset and shot speed, then it surely wouldn't make any difference whether the cue squirts 1 degree or 90 degrees. I think your point is valid as far as this goes.

But who's perfect? Inevitably, there is some error associated with whatever adjustment you make. A lower squirt cue will be more forgiving since the cueball's reaction to this error is less. Its reaction is less because the entire range of possible squirt angles is less.

Suppose, when applying a certain amount of english, your average error in the orientation of your stick is x degrees with a specific low squirt cue. In order to state that another cue with a larger squirt characteristic, say 25% greater, is nevertheless equivalent, you would have to make the case that your average error in stick orientation is 4/5 of x (80% of x) with this stick. This is highly unlikely, as I think you'll agree. There is no reason to believe it would be less for the higher squirt cue.

Jim

Jal
07-10-2006, 10:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... IMO, any time you have to use judgemnt to compensate for deflection, it's more important to know your stick rather than whether it's low deflection or high deflection. If you have to compensate, say 1 inch to hit that tiny contact point or if you have to compensate 1.5 inches to hit the same tiny contact point, what's the difference? You still have to compensate. I don't think there are too many people on the planet that can say they are more accurate aiming 1 inch off the target vs 1.5 inches to curve a CB to hit the same tiny spot...<hr /></blockquote>If you knew exactly how to adjust for every tip offset and shot speed, then it surely wouldn't make any difference whether the cue squirts 1 degree or 90 degrees. I think your point is valid as far as this goes.

But who's perfect? Inevitably, there is some error associated with whatever adjustment you make. A lower squirt cue will be more forgiving since the cueball's reaction to this error is less. Its reaction is less because the entire range of possible squirt angles is less.

Suppose, when applying a certain amount of english, your average error in the orientation of your stick is x degrees with a specific low squirt cue. In order to state that another cue with a larger squirt characteristic, say 25% greater, is nevertheless equivalent, you would have to make the case that your average error in stick orientation is 4/5 of x (80% of x) with this stick. This is highly unlikely, as I think you'll agree. There is no reason to believe it would be less for the higher squirt cue.

Jim
<hr /></blockquote>Actually, what I said above is complete nonsense.

Jim

Stretch
07-11-2006, 10:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>... IMO, any time you have to use judgemnt to compensate for deflection, it's more important to know your stick rather than whether it's low deflection or high deflection. If you have to compensate, say 1 inch to hit that tiny contact point or if you have to compensate 1.5 inches to hit the same tiny contact point, what's the difference? You still have to compensate. I don't think there are too many people on the planet that can say they are more accurate aiming 1 inch off the target vs 1.5 inches to curve a CB to hit the same tiny spot...<hr /></blockquote>If you knew exactly how to adjust for every tip offset and shot speed, then it surely wouldn't make any difference whether the cue squirts 1 degree or 90 degrees. I think your point is valid as far as this goes.

But who's perfect? Inevitably, there is some error associated with whatever adjustment you make. A lower squirt cue will be more forgiving since the cueball's reaction to this error is less. Its reaction is less because the entire range of possible squirt angles is less.

Suppose, when applying a certain amount of english, your average error in the orientation of your stick is x degrees with a specific low squirt cue. In order to state that another cue with a larger squirt characteristic, say 25% greater, is nevertheless equivalent, you would have to make the case that your average error in stick orientation is 4/5 of x (80% of x) with this stick. This is highly unlikely, as I think you'll agree. There is no reason to believe it would be less for the higher squirt cue.

Jim
<hr /></blockquote>Actually, what I said above is complete nonsense.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim yes, but interesting nonesense. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I played with a 314 for 2 years and just never liked the vibes. It was good, it just felt dead. Haveing a solid piece of shaft wood with tight grained maple.......sweete. Wood is alive, the feel is unmistakeable. My damn traditional roots couldn't allow me to hit with some "advanced technology" any longer.......what's next, aluminum bats in the Majors? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif St.

wayne crimi
08-01-2006, 02:44 PM
All I know is that the most accurate cue I have ever played with was a very stiff "billiard" cue with a narrow shaft and almost needle-like tip. The only reason I stopped using it was the taper. I didn't like the feeling of the shaft getting thicker/thinner at various parts of the stroke. So I switched to a whippy Predator 314. It's better than the typical cue, but not even close to my billiard cue.

cushioncrawler
08-01-2006, 04:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wayne crimi:</font><hr> All I know is that the most accurate cue I have ever played with was a very stiff "billiard" cue with a narrow shaft and almost needle-like tip. The only reason I stopped using it was the taper. I didn't like the feeling of the shaft getting thicker/thinner at various parts of the stroke. So I switched to a whippy Predator 314. It's better than the typical cue, but not even close to my billiard cue. <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Wayne -- Your reference to a stiff billiards cue caught my eye, but then i realized that u meant pocketless 3 cushion billiards, not English Billiards. Anyhow, i didnt know that an average billiards cue was made much different to an average pool cue (ie stiffer) -- i have never seen a pocketless table in real life -- but it occurred to me that if u took some wood off a pool cue, to make the tip thinner, getting more taper allso, then the cue would be whippyr, not stiffer. Or, perhaps there is more wood "added" near the bridge hand in the first place -- (genuine question here, not a comment).

What do u mean by "most accurate" ?? I have a feeling that i agree with u -- that a stiffer cue iz more accurate, for all types of shots, ie including shots with spin -- ie the squirt might be more, but it iz dependable squirt, and hence more eezyly judged.

But i think that "accuracy" iz a different thing to different people -- i think that for most of us "4 wrongz" make a "correct" -- i think that for most of us, if we bought a magic cue that hit the ball exactly where we aimed (and stroked), every shot, then our games would in fact suffer -- we need an "innaccurate cue" to help to balance the 4 wrongz. For instance, i have allwayz said that most of us would benefit by uzing a bent cue.

I suspect that a "needle tip" reduces squirt, which iz good, and not necessaryly contradictory to the above statement -- and iz allso "more accurate" for judging the amount of spin and draw etc that iz perhaps more critical in billiards -- i dont play pool nor 3-cushion so i carnt really say.

I guess that when u say that u dont like the feel of a very tapered shaft, i guess that here u mean for a loop-bridge -- i guess that it probably wouldnt worry someone who uzes a Vee-bridge.

wayne crimi
08-02-2006, 05:28 AM
Hi cushioncrawler,

It is a 3-cushion billiard cue. Also, by accurate I did mean much less squirt. You are also correct about the bridge hand. I experimented with an open handed bridge for awhile, but I wasn't very comfortable on some shots. Overall though, I think pool players that are very concerned about squirt should give a few billiard cues a try (especially one with a very small tip and thin shaft).

cushioncrawler
08-02-2006, 05:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wayne crimi:</font><hr> Hi cushioncrawler,

It is a 3-cushion billiard cue. Also, by accurate I did mean much less squirt. You are also correct about the bridge hand. I experimented with an open handed bridge for awhile, but I wasn't very comfortable on some shots. Overall though, I think pool players that are very concerned about squirt should give a few billiard cues a try (especially one with a very small tip and thin shaft).
<hr /></blockquote>

I copyd u pool guyz -- i bort 4 "center-joint" dufferins (are they out of business now??) for about $75 each -- ash shaft (10mm brass ferrules), red-wood butts -- all 4 shafts and butts were allmost perfectly interchangeable.

I cut 2" off 2 shafts, to make them 11.5mm -- i didnt replace the ferrules, i simply used a thin metal washer under the tip, to stop splitting etc. I sanded one of the other "original" shafts to make it much whippyr, it iz now 9mm.

I cut 2" off one butt, to make it shorter and lighter -- i drilled out the 4 butts to make them lighter, but drilled holes nearer the joint and filled with lead or solder to regain wt and to make the cues more noze-heavy, each butt being a different wt. So, now i have umpteen combinationz of length and wt and whippyness.

I mainly uze the whippy "cue" for playing what we call "top of the table" -- where u need lots of spin at slow pace -- this iz a killer with a fat n heavy cue, u carnt get much spin, and squirt is too varyable at such slow pace -- the silly modern billiard ball iz only 2 1/16" and 140gm.

Quinten Hann at first tryd to uze his snooker cue (9.7mm?? and 18oz??) at the recent IPT event, but later changed to a pool cue -- i guess that a 2 1/4" ball (one posting said that theze are 260gm, must have meant 160gm) makes it a different ball game.

But iznt Carom Billiardz played with 2 3/8" ballz ?? -- perhaps they make theze the same wt az the 2 1/4" pool ballz ??