Hard Maple Shaft: Theorist vs. Practitioner

[TennesseeJoe]

After being away from pool for 15 years and quickly being enlightened by the results from the Jacksonville project, I found it refreshing to find really new and exciting data regarding cue ball deflection.

For years many players and cue makers have considered hard Canadian Maple wood the best for pool shafts. My question is: "If hard Maple is more dense and thereby heavier than soft Maple, a hard Maple shaft of the same size should deflect the cue ball more. Why would the demand for hard Maple shafts continue?" Are we stuck in a paradigm?

It would be interesting the veiw the answers of both theorists and practitioners.

[SpiderMan]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TennesseeJoe:</font><hr>
For years many players and cue makers have considered hard Canadian Maple wood the best for pool shafts. My question is: "If hard Maple is more dense and thereby heavier than soft Maple, a hard Maple shaft of the same size should deflect the cue ball more. Why would the demand for hard Maple shafts continue?" Are we stuck in a paradigm?

It would be interesting the veiw the answers of both theorists and practitioners.
<hr /></blockquote>

A very-low-deflection shaft has obvious advantages in that the shooter only needs to make minimal adjustment to compensate his aim when using sidespin.

On the other hand, equipment which produces an amount of deflection such that the pivot point for near-complete compensation falls at the shooter's preferred bridge point may also have strong advantages. For example, an imperfect delivery could be somewhat self-compensating for aim, even without conscious effort from the shooter.

Cues with deflection characteristics that fall between, but not near, these two examples might be something less than desireable. Could this be the "soft maple" shaft?

SpiderMan