PDA

View Full Version : The answer to "Does a low-squirt cue help?"



dr_dave
11-26-2007, 10:53 AM
If you haven't seen it yet, my December '07 BD article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf) summarizes the results of a poll we had here a while back concerning whether or not a low-squirt cue helps and who it helps. I present and discuss the results in the article.

I also present a logical analysis with a graphical interpretation to try to explain how a low-squirt cue can help. The assumptions of the analysis are similar to what Shepard describes in an example in his Everything you Always Wanted to Know About Cue Ball Squirt, but Were Afraid to Ask (http://billiards.colostate.edu/physics/Shepard_squirt.pdf) article.

Please check out the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf) and let me know what you think. I'm curious to know what the anti-low-squirt-crowd out there thinks.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Here's the last line of the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf):
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>my answer to the question of whether a low-squirt cue can help is: yes, especially if you believe it can help you. The mind is a powerful thing. I use a low-squirt cue and I think I play better with it; therefore, I probably do.<hr /></blockquote>I wrote this because the analysis shows only a small expected increase in accuracy with a low-squirt cue for a player with decent squirt knowledge/intuition.

Billy_Bob
11-26-2007, 11:38 AM
Basically my low squirt cue gives me the advantage of being able to use english when the cue ball is near a rail and using front hand english. I can't do that with a regular cue using backhand english as I can't make a long enough bridge (10 inches or so).

So I may need my low deflection cue for one or two shots in a game whereas for all the rest I could use a regular cue. BUT sometimes that "one shot" might be the difference between winning or losing!

Then of course there is the old timers way to do things and that is they just know where to aim from 20/30 years of playing with a regular cue. And for that I say if it works, don't fix it! Keep playing with the regular cue.

wolfdancer
11-26-2007, 12:49 PM
Nice summary of the "issue"
But..............my Predator Cue, which plays better for me, then any cue I have ever owned....isn't really "Excalibur", just an ordinary sword, that I have given imaginary powers to???

dr_dave
11-26-2007, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>Nice summary of the "issue"<hr /></blockquote>Thank you.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>But..............my Predator Cue, which plays better for me, then any cue I have ever owned....isn't really "Excalibur", just an ordinary sword, that I have given imaginary powers to???<hr /></blockquote>The mind is a powerful thing ... especially when self-medicated.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
11-26-2007, 05:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Deeman and Eric,

I know both of you guys are experienced players, and both of you have both expressed strong opinions in the past about the value (or lack of value) of low-squirt cues. Please take a look at the thread dealing with low-squirt cues (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=265285&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and express your opinions as experienced players.

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote><font color="blue"> Dave,

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me to do here. If you mean do i agree that 50+ percent of players think low deflection cues are better for all players, then I agree that over 50 percent feel that way. I won't argue with the poll data. if you mean there is material I disagree with in the technical explaination of the effects, Nope, it looks o.k. to me.

I still feel deflection is much over rated. I do not feel their introduction has changed the overall nor specific demonstratable ability of people to pocket balls much better than the old garden variety cues we used a few years ago.

So, we all know and agree that deflection is there and cues with less end mass deflect less, on average, than "old style" cues. My position has always been that whil;e that is true, it does not translate into many less missed balls, that consciencously and unconscienously players adjust. Your argument is that having to make less adjustment is better. That may be correct but I don't especially agree it is true. I think, there may be value in the developed ability to make adjustments to changes in deflection, cloth speed, humidity, etc. that can give value to more pronounced adjustment abilities, not more fine turned. for instance.

Being uneducated but half sane, I would agree that reduction of variation in the lab or the engineering environment is mostly good. I just believe it is highly overrated on the actual pool table under game conditions.

I also happen to believe it is an excellent way to market over priced production cues when innovation is a hard thing to hang your advertising hat on.

I say, take the new shafts away from the best players and they will still beat the same old people with the new shafts, set after set, after set. Aside from a warm feeling, this is not changing a lot of people's basic games. The same effort and study put into the way a ball reacts off a rail with all ball speeds, spins and slides, for instance, would yield much more tangible results. IMESHO

I have been wrong before. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif</font color><hr /></blockquote>That's what I wanted from you and others ... your opinions about low-squirt cues and the observations in my article. I think I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for the part about players being able to adjust "unconsciously." That would be an impressive trick. (I think you meant "subconsciously.")

Thank you for your always-insightful thoughts,
Dave

PS: It's interesting you mentioned a study of rail kick and bank effects. That happens to be the topic of my next major series for BD. I already have a bunch of experiments planned.

dr_dave
11-26-2007, 05:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>Dave, I'll throw my opinion out there, but it's not based on much research.

From my personal experience, trying both types of shafts, they both have their own charactoristics that need to be factored in when shooting a non-centerball hit.

IMO, what is the difference if you compensate 1/8" or 1/16" for squirt? You still have to compensate. Just because you have to compensate "only" 1/16", doesn't necessarily make you more accurate.

Anyway, I'm not the authority, it's just my personal experience.

Eric<hr /></blockquote>Eric,

Thanks for the comments. In the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), I try to make a case that having to compensate less can improve your accuracy a little; but I admit this might not be true for all people.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
11-26-2007, 05:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Derek:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Deeman and Eric,

I know both of you guys are experienced players, and both of you have both expressed strong opinions in the past about the value (or lack of value) of low-squirt cues. Please take a look at the thread dealing with low-squirt cues (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ccb&amp;Number=265285&amp;page =0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1) and express your opinions as experienced players.

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I have one of the first Showcase Billiards low deflection shafts with a one-inch piece of ebony at the joint area. I was convinced to buy one from a better shooter in the area at the time because it was starting to become a fad. I had some bonus money from work to blow, so I purchased a shaft for my McDermott. I showed it to the fellow who recommended it and we spent the next half-hour examining the deflection from it compared to a normal cue. Something's there.

To be honest, I don't pay attention to it. It's a minimal effect to me at best. I'm perfectly fine switching from that cue to another good normal cue if I must. Maybe I have to unconsciously make some small adjustments, but nothing that I have to shout out loud, "oh yeah, I've got to aim this way now".

If anything, I just enjoy using the shaft because it's an inch longer (how phallic of me to say) and it has some character because it's one of a few (Showcase low-deflection shafts have the hardwood insert internally now versus the exterior appearance of mine).

My impression of Predator cues is they are just well-built cues that a lot of people have now versus the need to have a low-deflection cue.<hr /></blockquote>Thank you for your thoughts.

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr
11-26-2007, 06:27 PM
I must agree with DeeMan on this one. A good player will play just as well with either type of cue. An average player will play pretty much the same with either type of cue. And a poor player probably shouldn't spend that kind of money on a cue.

I have used both, and I do see a difference, but neither gives me an advantage over the other. Different? Yes! Better? Not necessarily.
Steve

dr_dave
11-26-2007, 11:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>I must agree with DeeMan on this one. A good player will play just as well with either type of cue.<hr /></blockquote>I also agree, provided the player is good and fast at adjusting between a high-squirt and low squirt cue. I'm not sure all good players would be equally good at adjusting.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>An average player will play pretty much the same with either type of cue.<hr /></blockquote>I think this depends on how much the player uses English and how well they compensate for squirt.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>And a poor player probably shouldn't spend that kind of money on a cue.<hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Also, a poor player probably should not use English very much, so the cue should definitely not make a difference (as long as it is straight).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>I have used both, and I do see a difference, but neither gives me an advantage over the other. Different? Yes! Better? Not necessarily.<hr /></blockquote>I have also used both, and I prefer the low-squirt cue. I prefer to have the CB go closer to the direction I am aiming so I don't have to compensate as much. The article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf) provides some logical arguments as to why a low-squirt cue might be better for some people, but what is most important is what a person thinks. If a person thinks the low-squirt cue can help a little, then it might help. If a person thinks they compensate just as well with either type of cue, then a low-squirt cue probably won't help. I think whether a low-squirt cue can really help or not is not as important as what an individual believes.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
11-27-2007, 02:22 AM
I think the science is in and it shows that certain shafts actually do considerably reduce the amount of squirt imparted by most non-low-squirt shafts.

In my mind, the reduction of ANY variable that can cause missed shots is fundamentally a good idea. Sure "super-human" pros can get used to almost anything. Efren can beat all of our brains out with a warped house cue.

But for the rest of us, reducing the margin of error vs. geometrically correct aiming just HAS to be beneficial IMHO.

Just as an analogy, if a gun has a poorly rifled barrel, the bullet will be more suspeptible to wind. A GREAT shooter can compensate for the wind by experience and feel but the rest of us will simply miss a lot more than if we had a properly rifled barrel.

Same thing with the reduction of squirt...all other things being equal.

So where I come down is that most pros would benefit slightly and most amateurs will benefit more significantly and in direct proportion to how bad they are...simply because, by definition, they would be less capable of adjusting properly.

Regards,
Jim

pooltchr
11-27-2007, 05:17 AM
Dave,
My thoughts are that if you must adjust, how much isn't a question. The end result is you must get the cue ball to a specific spot. Whether you need to adjust 1/8 of an inch or 1/16 of an inch, the adjustment itself still needs to be within the same parameters.
Using a straight in shot as your centergistic, you need to adjust your aim for any cut shot. It isn't any harder to adjust for a 30 degree cut than it is to adjust for a 15 degree cut. It's simply a matter of knowing how much adjustment you need to make. The same applies to adjusting for squirt.
Steve

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 09:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>My thoughts are that if you must adjust, how much isn't a question. The end result is you must get the cue ball to a specific spot. Whether you need to adjust 1/8 of an inch or 1/16 of an inch, the adjustment itself still needs to be within the same parameters.<hr /></blockquote>I agree with you if you assume the amount of adjustment required is known precisely, but that might not be the case. Here's the argument I present in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf):<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>One thing I assumed in the analysis is that the typical error in judging the amount of squirt for a given amount of English will be a fixed percentage of the overall squirt range for the cue. So for a cue with a larger squirt range, the typical error in judging the amount of squirt will be proportionally larger (see the red bars). This assumption seems reasonable to me. If the amount of squirt varies over a larger range, you will probably be less accurate with identifying a specific squirt value within the range. Some people think they can be equally accurate regardless of the size of the range, but I don’t think that is the case for most people.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Using a straight in shot as your centergistic, you need to adjust your aim for any cut shot. It isn't any harder to adjust for a 30 degree cut than it is to adjust for a 15 degree cut. It's simply a matter of knowing how much adjustment you need to make.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly (in response to your last sentence). The problem is some people are better than others at visualizing the angle and required aim line, and some people visualize some cuts more easily than other cuts.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>The same applies to adjusting for squirt.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think this is true for most players, so I respectfully disagree. A cut angle is relatively easy to visualize, and it doesn't depend on the cue. Squirt angles are much smaller and vary from one cue to another.

Regards,
Dave

DeadCrab
11-27-2007, 10:34 AM
Perhaps I'm forming a bad habit, but I have found that squirt can be a good way to sink a long shot with a narrow cut angle (less than 5 degrees). Aim center of cue ball to center of object ball, then move the cue tip slightly off center in the direction of the cut (parallel english). The squirt can give you that slight deviation that is needed.

Eric.
11-27-2007, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>My thoughts are that if you must adjust, how much isn't a question. The end result is you must get the cue ball to a specific spot. Whether you need to adjust 1/8 of an inch or 1/16 of an inch, the adjustment itself still needs to be within the same parameters.<hr /></blockquote>I agree with you if you assume the amount of adjustment required is known precisely, but that might not be the case. Here's the argument I present in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf):<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>One thing I assumed in the analysis is that the typical error in judging the amount of squirt for a given amount of English will be a fixed percentage of the overall squirt range for the cue. So for a cue with a larger squirt range, the typical error in judging the amount of squirt will be proportionally larger (see the red bars). This assumption seems reasonable to me. If the amount of squirt varies over a larger range, you will probably be less accurate with identifying a specific squirt value within the range. Some people think they can be equally accurate regardless of the size of the range, but I don’t think that is the case for most people.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Using a straight in shot as your centergistic, you need to adjust your aim for any cut shot. It isn't any harder to adjust for a 30 degree cut than it is to adjust for a 15 degree cut. It's simply a matter of knowing how much adjustment you need to make.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly (in response to your last sentence). The problem is some people are better than others at visualizing the angle and required aim line, and some people visualize some cuts more easily than other cuts.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>The same applies to adjusting for squirt.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think this is true for most players, so I respectfully disagree. A cut angle is relatively easy to visualize, and it doesn't depend on the cue. Squirt angles are much smaller and vary from one cue to another.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave,

A lot of ppl use fractional aiming. If you are a fractional aimer, and say, you've determined that your cut is a half ball hit, assuming that you know the squirt of your cue, it is easy to click over another 1/8" on the cb to ob edge relation (if this makes sense).

BAscially, using the ob edge as a reference, it is easy to comepnsate a specific amount.


Eric

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DeadCrab:</font><hr>Perhaps I'm forming a bad habit, but I have found that squirt can be a good way to sink a long shot with a narrow cut angle (less than 5 degrees). Aim center of cue ball to center of object ball, then move the cue tip slightly off center in the direction of the cut (parallel english). The squirt can give you that slight deviation that is needed.<hr /></blockquote>IMHO, I think that is a bad habit. Have you experimented by comparing this method to aiming straight using an above center hit? I would be curious to know how often you make the shot with each method (e.g., after practicing each and then trying each 10 or more times).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 10:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>My thoughts are that if you must adjust, how much isn't a question. The end result is you must get the cue ball to a specific spot. Whether you need to adjust 1/8 of an inch or 1/16 of an inch, the adjustment itself still needs to be within the same parameters.<hr /></blockquote>I agree with you if you assume the amount of adjustment required is known precisely, but that might not be the case. Here's the argument I present in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf):<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>One thing I assumed in the analysis is that the typical error in judging the amount of squirt for a given amount of English will be a fixed percentage of the overall squirt range for the cue. So for a cue with a larger squirt range, the typical error in judging the amount of squirt will be proportionally larger (see the red bars). This assumption seems reasonable to me. If the amount of squirt varies over a larger range, you will probably be less accurate with identifying a specific squirt value within the range. Some people think they can be equally accurate regardless of the size of the range, but I don’t think that is the case for most people.<hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Using a straight in shot as your centergistic, you need to adjust your aim for any cut shot. It isn't any harder to adjust for a 30 degree cut than it is to adjust for a 15 degree cut. It's simply a matter of knowing how much adjustment you need to make.<hr /></blockquote>Exactly (in response to your last sentence). The problem is some people are better than others at visualizing the angle and required aim line, and some people visualize some cuts more easily than other cuts.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>The same applies to adjusting for squirt.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think this is true for most players, so I respectfully disagree. A cut angle is relatively easy to visualize, and it doesn't depend on the cue. Squirt angles are much smaller and vary from one cue to another.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Dave,

A lot of ppl use fractional aiming. If you are a fractional aimer, and say, you've determined that your cut is a half ball hit, assuming that you know the squirt of your cue, it is easy to click over another 1/8" on the cb to ob edge relation (if this makes sense).

BAscially, using the ob edge as a reference, it is easy to comepnsate a specific amount.<hr /></blockquote>Eric,

Thank you for the advice. However, this still assumes the shooter already knows (intuitively or consciously) that 1/8" is the proper amount of adjustment for the specific shot (given the shot speed, distance, cue elevation, amount and type of English, etc.).

Regards,
Dave

Jal
11-27-2007, 11:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>...So where I come down is that most pros would benefit slightly and most amateurs will benefit more significantly and in direct proportion to how bad they are...simply because, by definition, they would be less capable of adjusting properly.<hr /></blockquote>I think this says it all. To deny that there is some advantage is equivalent to saying that it would be just as easy to shoot with a shaft that squirts, say, 16 degrees versus one that squirts 1 degree at some particular offset. The benefits of the real-life low squirt cues aren't that obvious because the reduction isn't that dramatic, but it's still there.

This assumes, of course, that one hasn't already "burned in" the adjustments to the extent that one can't or isn't willing to relearn them.

Jim

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 11:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>...So where I come down is that most pros would benefit slightly and most amateurs will benefit more significantly and in direct proportion to how bad they are...simply because, by definition, they would be less capable of adjusting properly.<hr /></blockquote>I think this says it all. To deny that there is some advantage is equivalent to saying that it would be just as easy to shoot with a shaft that squirts, say, 16 degrees versus one that squirts 1 degree at some particular offset. The benefits of the real-life low squirt cues isn't that obvious because the reduction isn't that dramatic, but it's still there.

This assumes, of course, that one hasn't already "burned in" the adjustments to the extent that one can't relearn them.<hr /></blockquote>Excellent posts. Thank you.

Regards,
Dave

Eric.
11-27-2007, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thank you for the advice. However, this still assumes the shooter already knows (intuitively or consciously) that 1/8" is the proper amount of adjustment for the specific shot (given the shot speed, distance, cue elevation, amount and type of English, etc.).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...


Eric

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 11:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thank you for the advice. However, this still assumes the shooter already knows (intuitively or consciously) that 1/8" is the proper amount of adjustment for the specific shot (given the shot speed, distance, cue elevation, amount and type of English, etc.).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But the amount of squirt varies with the amount of English. Also, it is difficult to know exactly how much to compensate for all types of shots. And as I point out in the article, for a cue with a larger squirt range, your degree of uncertainty might be a little larger. I still think my reasoning in the article is valid, but it sounds like this is one of those topics where we will just need to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
11-27-2007, 12:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thank you for the advice. However, this still assumes the shooter already knows (intuitively or consciously) that 1/8" is the proper amount of adjustment for the specific shot (given the shot speed, distance, cue elevation, amount and type of English, etc.).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But the amount of squirt varies with the amount of English. Also, it is difficult to know exactly how much to compensate for all types of shots. And as I point out in the article, for a cue with a larger squirt range, your degree of uncertainty might be a little larger. I still think my reasoning in the article is valid, but it sounds like this is one of those topics where we will just need to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Right Dave. The "missed shot ratio" becomes greater AT LEAST in proportion to the degree of "feel" required to execute the adjustment...and probably in greater proportion.

I think a good analogy would be a field goal kicker or golfer who has to compensate for wind. If faced with a left-to-right wind, do they aim left or do that hook it into the wind? And how strong is the wind?

Missed shots would be at least proportional to the wind force and the exact same thing is true with squirt.

I don't think there is a kicker or golfer who would intentionbally CHOOSE a strong cross wind to play in (except on certain shots where a wind in one particular direction would help them move the ball in a particular direction...like a dog leg golf hole).

But in a random situation, I can't imagine a golfer or kicker who WANTS to have to adjust for wind instead of playing in no wind conditions and for exactly the same reasons that pool players should favor low-squirt shafts.

Regards,
Jim

Jal
11-27-2007, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But as Dr. Dave points out, it's always an estimate.

If you had to estimate the size of something which you knew to be between 0 and 1, versus something between 0 and 100, which do you think you woud do better at? In the former case, your error would almost certainly be less than 1. In the latter case, your error would likely be greater than 1.

With squirt compensation, it's not the percentage error that counts, but the absolute error, as per above (less than 1 is better than greater than 1, even though the percentage error may be better in the latter case).

The same applies if we scale that 100 down to, say, 1.3. It's now much more subtle, but it's the same principle.

That is the reasoning behind Dr. Dave's article, I believe, and it's quite valid, imo.

Jim

Eric.
11-27-2007, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But as Dr. Dave points out, it's always an estimate.

If you had to estimate the size of something which you knew to be between 0 and 1, versus something between 0 and 100, which do you think you woud do better at? In the former case, your error would almost certainly be less than 1. In the latter case, your error would likely be greater than 1.

With squirt compensation, it's not the percentage error that counts, but the absolute error, as per above (less than 1 is better than greater than 1, even though the percentage error may be better in the latter case).

The same applies if we scale that 100 down to, say, 1.3. It's now much more subtle, but it's the same principle.

That is the reasoning behind Dr. Dave's article, I believe, and it's quite valid, imo.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim,

I hear your opinion, it's valid, but lemme throw one out there too:

Assuming that you need to make the CB hit a spot about the size of a pin head on the OB to pocket it, and assuming that a low squirt shaft squirts 50% less than a normal one, do you think you'll pocket more accurately compensating, say, 1/16" vs 1/8"? Remember, you still have to aim away from the pinhead contact point on the OB.

*edit-use a fairly straight on shot vs a big cut shot to visualize my example.

Eric

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 01:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Eric,

Thank you for the advice. However, this still assumes the shooter already knows (intuitively or consciously) that 1/8" is the proper amount of adjustment for the specific shot (given the shot speed, distance, cue elevation, amount and type of English, etc.).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But the amount of squirt varies with the amount of English. Also, it is difficult to know exactly how much to compensate for all types of shots. And as I point out in the article, for a cue with a larger squirt range, your degree of uncertainty might be a little larger. I still think my reasoning in the article is valid, but it sounds like this is one of those topics where we will just need to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

Right Dave. The "missed shot ratio" becomes greater AT LEAST in proportion to the degree of "feel" required to execute the adjustment...and probably in greater proportion.

I think a good analogy would be a field goal kicker or golfer who has to compensate for wind. If faced with a left-to-right wind, do they aim left or do that hook it into the wind? And how strong is the wind?

Missed shots would be at least proportional to the wind force and the exact same thing is true with squirt.

I don't think there is a kicker or golfer who would intentionbally CHOOSE a strong cross wind to play in (except on certain shots where a wind in one particular direction would help them move the ball in a particular direction...like a dog leg golf hole).

But in a random situation, I can't imagine a golfer or kicker who WANTS to have to adjust for wind instead of playing in no wind conditions and for exactly the same reasons that pool players should favor low-squirt shafts.

Regards,
Jim <hr /></blockquote>Good analogy, but you should say "low wind" instead of "no wind." In your analogy, a low-squirt cue is comparable to a low-wind golf shot. With current equipment design, a zero-squirt cue is not possible.

Dave

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 01:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But as Dr. Dave points out, it's always an estimate.

If you had to estimate the size of something which you knew to be between 0 and 1, versus something between 0 and 100, which do you think you woud do better at? In the former case, your error would almost certainly be less than 1. In the latter case, your error would likely be greater than 1.

With squirt compensation, it's not the percentage error that counts, but the absolute error, as per above (less than 1 is better than greater than 1, even though the percentage error may be better in the latter case).

The same applies if we scale that 100 down to, say, 1.3. It's now much more subtle, but it's the same principle.

That is the reasoning behind Dr. Dave's article, I believe, and it's quite valid, imo.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>That is a good summary of one of the points I make in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf); although, your description makes the point more clear.

Thanks,
Dave

wolfdancer
11-27-2007, 01:21 PM
"I do see a difference, but neither gives me an advantage over the other."
Do you realize the serious impact on our economy if this news gets out? Most advertising is based on the "ours is different, therefore better" principle. AND, if different ain't better...they'll stop advertising, and we'll be on pay per view for all sporting events, the Sopranos, and America's Got Talent.
Tiger will be lucky to make $500 for winning the Masters...
Alex Rodriguez will be making scale......

wolfdancer
11-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Off topic, but on Sunday, a friend bought his out of town guest over to play some pool. Seeing my clubs, golf came up, and he claimed his longest drive on flat land was 475 yds, with the wind blowing at 50mph. I forgot to ask if he was playing downwind.....

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But as Dr. Dave points out, it's always an estimate.

If you had to estimate the size of something which you knew to be between 0 and 1, versus something between 0 and 100, which do you think you woud do better at? In the former case, your error would almost certainly be less than 1. In the latter case, your error would likely be greater than 1.

With squirt compensation, it's not the percentage error that counts, but the absolute error, as per above (less than 1 is better than greater than 1, even though the percentage error may be better in the latter case).

The same applies if we scale that 100 down to, say, 1.3. It's now much more subtle, but it's the same principle.

That is the reasoning behind Dr. Dave's article, I believe, and it's quite valid, imo.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim,

I hear your opinion, it's valid, but lemme throw one out there too:

Assuming that you need to make the CB hit a spot about the size of a pin head on the OB to pocket it, and assuming that a low squirt shaft squirts 50% less than a normal one, do you think you'll pocket more accurately compensating, say, 1/16" vs 1/8"? Remember, you still have to aim away from the pinhead contact point on the OB.<hr /></blockquote>First of all, when extreme accuracy is required on a shot, using English might not be the best decision. Nobody is perfect at adjusting for squirt, swerve, and throw, all of which occur (in various amounts based on the shot type) when using English.

Having said that, I'll now try to answer your question directly. I guess the answer, based on our arguments, is yes ... you might be more likely to fall within the pin head target if the required adjustment is estimated from a smaller possible range. I'm not saying you'll make the shot every time, but you might make it 1 extra time in 20 attempts (for example).

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Off topic, but on Sunday, a friend bought his out of town guest over to play some pool. Seeing my clubs, golf came up, and he claimed his longest drive on flat land was 475 yds, with the wind blowing at 50mph. I forgot to ask if he was playing downwind.....<hr /></blockquote>You sure are good at off-topic "blowing hot air" and "making wind" stories. FYI, there are products at your local drug store that can help with your problem. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Dave

Eric.
11-27-2007, 01:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
Assuming that you need to make the CB hit a spot about the size of a pin head on the OB to pocket it, and assuming that a low squirt shaft squirts 50% less than a normal one, do you think you'll pocket more accurately compensating, say, 1/16" vs 1/8"? Remember, you still have to aim away from the pinhead contact point on the OB.<hr /></blockquote>

First of all, when extreme accuracy is required on a shot, using English might not be the best decision. Nobody is perfect at adjusting for squirt, swerve, and throw, all of which occur (in various amounts based on the shot type) when using English.

Having said that, I'll now try to answer your question directly. I guess the answer, based on our arguments, is yes ... you might be more likely to fall within the pin head target if the required adjustment is estimated from a smaller possible range. I'm not saying you'll make the shot every time, but you might make it 1 extra time in 20 attempts (for example).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I think you misunderstood my previous example.

I'm not talking about an extreme accuracy situation, moreso, a garden variety cut shot.

Assuming that the contact spot/range to pocket an OB is a spot about the size of a pinhead(to use an example, not actual fact), then that IS your margin of error to pocket a ball. You must make the CB hit teh OB within that range/spot or the OB will not pocket.

I used an almost straight in shot to give an example. Lets assume the OB is in the center of the table and the CB is 6 inches from the corner pocket, a slight cut shot. It's about a "7/8 ball hit". The contact range/spot is still the same size whether the cb is there or moved to the middle of the short rail.
Now, lets say you are shooting with side spin. Using both low and regular squirt shafts, you still need some form of compensation. Lets also say that the low squirt shaft needs 1/16" of compensation and the regualr shaft needs 1/8" of compensation. Which shaft do you think will hit the pinhead spot more often? Do you think compensating "only" an 1/16" of target will be more accurate than 1/8"? I feel, if you don't compensate 1/16" exactly, you'll miss. I feel, with the other, if you don't compensate 1/8" exactly, you'll miss. Anything more or less than the exact compensation will miss.

I still dont see how compensating 1/16" is more accurate than compensating 1/8".


Eric

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 02:34 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>
Assuming that you need to make the CB hit a spot about the size of a pin head on the OB to pocket it, and assuming that a low squirt shaft squirts 50% less than a normal one, do you think you'll pocket more accurately compensating, say, 1/16" vs 1/8"? Remember, you still have to aim away from the pinhead contact point on the OB.<hr /></blockquote>

First of all, when extreme accuracy is required on a shot, using English might not be the best decision. Nobody is perfect at adjusting for squirt, swerve, and throw, all of which occur (in various amounts based on the shot type) when using English.

Having said that, I'll now try to answer your question directly. I guess the answer, based on our arguments, is yes ... you might be more likely to fall within the pin head target if the required adjustment is estimated from a smaller possible range. I'm not saying you'll make the shot every time, but you might make it 1 extra time in 20 attempts (for example).

Regards,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

I think you misunderstood my previous example.

I'm not talking about an extreme accuracy situation, moreso, a garden variety cut shot.

Assuming that the contact spot/range to pocket an OB is a spot about the size of a pinhead(to use an example, not actual fact), then that IS your margin of error to pocket a ball. You must make the CB hit teh OB within that range/spot or the OB will not pocket.

I used an almost straight in shot to give an example. Lets assume the OB is in the center of the table and the CB is 6 inches from the corner pocket, a slight cut shot. It's about a "7/8 ball hit". The contact range/spot is still the same size whether the cb is there or moved to the middle of the short rail.
Now, lets say you are shooting with side spin. Using both low and regular squirt shafts, you still need some form of compensation. Lets also say that the low squirt shaft needs 1/16" of compensation and the regualr shaft needs 1/8" of compensation. Which shaft do you think will hit the pinhead spot more often? Do you think compensating "only" an 1/16" of target will be more accurate than 1/8"? I feel, if you don't compensate 1/16" exactly, you'll miss. I feel, with the other, if you don't compensate 1/8" exactly, you'll miss. Anything more or less than the exact compensation will miss.

I still dont see how compensating 1/16" is more accurate than compensating 1/8".<hr /></blockquote>My answer hasn't changed. The error in estimating the amount of squirt for the low-squirt cue (approximately 1/16" in your example) will be less than the error in estimating the amount of squirt for the regular cue (1/8" in your example). Therefore, if you agree with the premises of my argument in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), you would have a slightly higher percentage chance of pocketing the ball with the low-squirt cue, provided you are equally comfortable with both cues.

Dave

wolfdancer
11-27-2007, 02:57 PM
Doc, that is a true story....it reminded me though of the story in this month's Golf Digest...a woman claims to have made 17 aces in about the same number of months...but nobody has seen them go into the hole...she just walks up and finds them in the hole..while sometimes it looks like they are headed for the trees. 17 aces, no witnesses.
I somehow managed to avoid the drug generation....don't even use aspirin.....now Bombay Gin though has a certain appeal....

wolfdancer
11-27-2007, 03:11 PM
while you guys argue the merits/non-merits of lo squirt cues....testing my Predator against other cues, on the frozen rail, 90 degree cut shot....I can add about a half tip more of English, and still use the inside edge as my aim. On the OB1 shaft,I've never been able to apply more English, with less compensation....unfortunately, I lent that out, and haven't the heart to take it back.
The mind is a powerful thing...and Dan Millman has some great books on the subject.....
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> “Everything you'll ever need to know is within you; the secrets of the universe are imprinted on the cells of your body. But you haven't learned how to read the wisdom of the body”
[ QUOTE ]
“Like this gas tank, you are overflowing with preconceptions, full of useless knowledge. You hold many facts and opinions, yet know little of yourself. Before you can learn, you'll have to first empty your tank.” <hr /></blockquote>
Say what? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Deeman3
11-27-2007, 04:22 PM
Make sure you are well conceiled when you empty your tank. I think Kalifornia has public decency laws, unlike Alabama... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ralph_Kramden
11-27-2007, 04:35 PM
Dr_Dave -

Thank you for starting this thread. Even though I own several cues, I have never owned one with a low squirt shaft. I had played with with another players low squirt shaft but didn't care for the feel of his cue. Knowing it may just be that particular cue I was still considering buying one.

With all the talk of the advantages of them I was wondering if there was actually something there that I was missing by not playing with one and wondered what it could do to improve my game. With people who actually own them posting replys I now have a somewhat better idea of how they play.

I think I will try using a few more low squirt shafts before actually buying one. On long shots I can see the advantage of them if using english on the ball, but am still thinking that 'squirt' on short shots may be diminished. To some that may be an advantage but not so much to me.

Sometimes I play for the squirt on close shots to purposely cut across the ball when pocketing it. I do this to create spin while changing the direction of the cueball for position if needed. I probably could do this with a low squirt cue also, but I already do know how to do it with my present cue.

I guess I just need to consider how little squirt I need on long shots vs. how much squirt I need on short shots.

Thanks again. Think you put out a lot of good info here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

dr_dave
11-27-2007, 05:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> Make sure you are well conceiled when you empty your tank. I think Kalifornia has public decency laws, unlike Alabama... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif<hr /></blockquote>I'll be thinking about you guys this weekend when I pull off the ski slope to make some yellow snow. Here's another quote for you:

"A wise man never squirts upwind."

Regards,
Dave

pooltchr
11-27-2007, 07:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>

My answer hasn't changed. The error in estimating the amount of squirt for the low-squirt cue (approximately 1/16" in your example) will be less than the error in estimating the amount of squirt for the regular cue (1/8" in your example). Therefore, if you agree with the premises of my argument in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), you would have a slightly higher percentage chance of pocketing the ball with the low-squirt cue, provided you are equally comfortable with both cues.

Dave <hr /></blockquote>
The error in estimating would seem to be the same, regardless of the amount of compensation. Once you know how much your particular cue causes squirt, you must adjust that much. If I misjudge 1/8 by just 1 mm or if I misjudge 1/16 by the same 1 mm, I missed the shot by the same amount.

Now if you really want to muddy the waters, think about all the mental and physical adjustments needed by those who use BHE.

Again, I am not saying a player can't adjust to different equipment. Just as we need to adjust to different cloth, different humidity, etc., we need to be able to adjust to how a cue plays. Changing from standard to low squirt cues requires an adjustment on the part of the player. The better players will adjust more quickly. I consider myself to be a pretty fair player. I can use either (and have done so). Neither makes me shoot better or worse...I just have to adjust to the equipment.
Steve

dr_dave
11-28-2007, 12:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> My answer hasn't changed. The error in estimating the amount of squirt for the low-squirt cue (approximately 1/16" in your example) will be less than the error in estimating the amount of squirt for the regular cue (1/8" in your example). Therefore, if you agree with the premises of my argument in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), you would have a slightly higher percentage chance of pocketing the ball with the low-squirt cue, provided you are equally comfortable with both cues.<hr /></blockquote>The error in estimating would seem to be the same, regardless of the amount of compensation. Once you know how much your particular cue causes squirt, you must adjust that much. If I misjudge 1/8 by just 1 mm or if I misjudge 1/16 by the same 1 mm, I missed the shot by the same amount.<hr /></blockquote>This is true only if you know the exact amount of squirt for the amount of English being used with a particular shot. Nobody is perfect at judging the exact amount of squirt the cue will produce for a given amount of English (unless one is comfortable using BHE, and one's bridge is at the natural pivot length for the cue, and swerve and throw are also accounted for). And if there is squirt uncertainty, I claim the uncertainty might be more for a larger range of possible squirt values. I tried to explain and illustrate this in the article, and Jal did a pretty good job explaining it, but I can see how some people might doubt the logic.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Now if you really want to muddy the waters, think about all the mental and physical adjustments needed by those who use BHE.<hr /></blockquote>I would prefer not. I know BHE helps some people; but I don't believe it is a good system, in general, for an advanced player.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Again, I am not saying a player can't adjust to different equipment. Just as we need to adjust to different cloth, different humidity, etc., we need to be able to adjust to how a cue plays. Changing from standard to low squirt cues requires an adjustment on the part of the player. The better players will adjust more quickly. I consider myself to be a pretty fair player. I can use either (and have done so). Neither makes me shoot better or worse...I just have to adjust to the equipment.<hr /></blockquote>Sounds good to me. However, I still think a low-squirt cue might provide a slight increase in shot-making percentage (for shots with various amounts of English), even for a top player, based on the arguments and illustrations I provide in the article.

Now, for a novice player not good at adjusting for squirt, I think it is more clear that a low-squirt cue could be beneficial. (Although, if a novice player doesn't know about squirt, swerve, and throw, they should probably use English with caution.)

Regards,
Dave

cushioncrawler
11-28-2007, 12:50 AM
Dont know my best drive distance, but with a tail-gale i hit a 5 iron (2nd shot) 30yd over a 600+ yd hole, chipped back to about 12". But this woznt my longest drive, a little later i hit off from the adjacent shortish par 4, and sliced onto that par 5, the ball going past my previous effort, i hadtahit a full wedge back to the green.

But i reckon that the best cue (ie cue-squirt) for u iz the one that amends your straight-in shots. I am going to check this out in 2008. madMac.

Jal
11-28-2007, 02:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>But Dave, isn't that the very essence of compensation (learning the squirt for your particular cue)?

I mean, once you know your cue, the squirt is a consistant quantity. For example, if i know that for every foot of distance between cb and ob calls for an 1/8" of compensation, isn't taht all you need to know? As a follow on, IMO, this is why i dont feel I'm more accurate if I "only" need to compensate 1/16" for every foot...<hr /></blockquote>But as Dr. Dave points out, it's always an estimate.

If you had to estimate the size of something which you knew to be between 0 and 1, versus something between 0 and 100, which do you think you woud do better at? In the former case, your error would almost certainly be less than 1. In the latter case, your error would likely be greater than 1.

With squirt compensation, it's not the percentage error that counts, but the absolute error, as per above (less than 1 is better than greater than 1, even though the percentage error may be better in the latter case).

The same applies if we scale that 100 down to, say, 1.3. It's now much more subtle, but it's the same principle.

That is the reasoning behind Dr. Dave's article, I believe, and it's quite valid, imo.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jim,

I hear your opinion, it's valid, but lemme throw one out there too:

Assuming that you need to make the CB hit a spot about the size of a pin head on the OB to pocket it, and assuming that a low squirt shaft squirts 50% less than a normal one, do you think you'll pocket more accurately compensating, say, 1/16" vs 1/8"? Remember, you still have to aim away from the pinhead contact point on the OB.

*edit-use a fairly straight on shot vs a big cut shot to visualize my example.

Eric <hr /></blockquote>Sorry for the delay Eric. I did read your later expanded post on this and Dr. Dave's responses, which, as you might guess, I agree with.

I think there are two things to consider here.

First, echoing Dr. Dave, there are so many offset-squirt-swerve-throw combinations that I don't think anyone knows exactly how much squirt their cue produces at some offset. There's been a lot of dispute about this over just one shaft, the Predator I, for instance. Instead, we go by feel. Yes, feel is certainly accurate enough to make many, many shots, obviously, but there is always some estimation involved. And it's when you inject this estimation into the mix that I think the argument that "smaller is better" is valid.

But let me address your example directly. Suppose you did know that you had to hit exactly 1/8" to the side with one cue, and 1/16" to the side with another. If there was a convenient scale marked on the object ball or something nearby, thus providing a definite target, then I would absoulutely agree that you would have equal success aiming at the 1/16" mark or 1/8" mark.

But lacking such a target, you're back to estimating, even though by our current assumption, you know that you need to hit exactly 1/8" or 1/16" to the side. There's still the problem of gauging how much is 1/16" or 1/8". By my earlier argument, the error associated with estimating 1/16" is going to be less than 1/8". Not every time of course, but as a statistical trend. Sometimes you're going to do better at making a 1/8" adjustment.

Jim

Ralph_Kramden
11-28-2007, 05:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph_Kramden:</font><hr>
Sometimes I play for the squirt on close shots to purposely cut across the ball when pocketing it. I do this to create spin while changing the direction of the cueball for position if needed. I probably could do this with a low squirt cue also, but I already do know how to do it with my present cue.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is NOT correct...

(I do this to create spin while changing the direction of the cueball for position if needed.)

I am not a magician. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

What was meant to say was...

I do this to create spin to change the direction of the cueball (after it hits a rail) for position if needed.

The cueball does not change direction off the OB but has more spin applied with squirt and comes off a rail differently for position. I use a lot of side spin but usually with some follow when I do this.

Sorry 'bout that... It looked OK to me when I wrote it.

To see the type of cueball action I'm talking about click on this video. At 2:54 there is a similar shot.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekyLXFehvvk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekyLXFehvvk)

Eric.
11-28-2007, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Sorry for the delay Eric. I did read your later expanded post on this and Dr. Dave's responses, which, as you might guess, I agree with.

I think there are two things to consider here.

First, echoing Dr. Dave, there are so many offset-squirt-swerve-throw combinations that I don't think anyone knows exactly how much squirt their cue produces at some offset. There's been a lot of dispute about this over just one shaft, the Predator I, for instance. Instead, we go by feel. Yes, feel is certainly accurate enough to make many, many shots, obviously, but there is always some estimation involved. And it's when you inject this estimation into the mix that I think the argument that "smaller is better" is valid.
<font color="blue">I agree that there are many variables, too many to consciously focus on while trying to make a shot. I also agree taht feel, which you learn from experience, is the only way to go. </font color>

But let me address your example directly. Suppose you did know that you had to hit exactly 1/8" to the side with one cue, and 1/16" to the side with another. If there was a convenient scale marked on the object ball or something nearby, thus providing a definite target, then I would absoulutely agree that you would have equal success aiming at the 1/16" mark or 1/8" mark.
<font color="blue">The reference I use is the overlap relation of the cb to ob. For example, a half ball hit is center of the cb to the edge of the ob. From there, you can estimate an 1/8" by shifting the cb/ob relation so that the ob edge is 1/8" less (or more) than the middle of the cb, if this makes sense. </font color>

But lacking such a target, you're back to estimating, even though by our current assumption, you know that you need to hit exactly 1/8" or 1/16" to the side. There's still the problem of gauging how much is 1/16" or 1/8". By my earlier argument, the error associated with estimating 1/16" is going to be less than 1/8". Not every time of course, but as a statistical trend. Sometimes you're going to do better at making a 1/8" adjustment.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

All I can say is that this topic is one of the recent great debates in Pool. Kinda reminds me of Roe vs. Wade.


Eric

Eric.
11-28-2007, 10:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> My answer hasn't changed. The error in estimating the amount of squirt for the low-squirt cue (approximately 1/16" in your example) will be less than the error in estimating the amount of squirt for the regular cue (1/8" in your example). Therefore, if you agree with the premises of my argument in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), you would have a slightly higher percentage chance of pocketing the ball with the low-squirt cue, provided you are equally comfortable with both cues.

Dave <hr /></blockquote>

All I can say is that this topic is to Pool what Roe vs Wade is to abortion. Neither side has claimed any victory, but the support runs deep for both sides.

I appreciate the time and effort you made in you article, Dave. It has great points, but unfortunately, it is not the final word nor is it definitive proof. Like all hypothesis, it'sa good educated guess, but still unproven in real world situations.

I'll throw another thought out for debate:

The accuracy to pocket a ball/margin of error is not like throwing horseshoes where a smaller margin of error may get you more points. IMO, the accuracy to pocket a ball in Pool is fairly precise and close is not good enough. If you think about it, who cares if the hit is off by 1/16" or 1/2", both end up as a miss. There is no bonus for missing by a smaller margin.

The only analogy I can think of is shooting a rifle at a bullseye. If your sights cause you to hit 1" too high consistantly, then you know how to adjust. If your sight causes you to miss 2" too high, consistantly, then you know what you need to do. Just because one rifle missed by 1" vs 2" doesnt make it more accurate. You still missed the target.


Eric

dr_dave
11-28-2007, 10:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Sorry for the delay Eric. I did read your later expanded post on this and Dr. Dave's responses, which, as you might guess, I agree with.

I think there are two things to consider here.

First, echoing Dr. Dave, there are so many offset-squirt-swerve-throw combinations that I don't think anyone knows exactly how much squirt their cue produces at some offset. There's been a lot of dispute about this over just one shaft, the Predator I, for instance. Instead, we go by feel. Yes, feel is certainly accurate enough to make many, many shots, obviously, but there is always some estimation involved. And it's when you inject this estimation into the mix that I think the argument that "smaller is better" is valid.
<font color="blue">I agree that there are many variables, too many to consciously focus on while trying to make a shot. I also agree taht feel, which you learn from experience, is the only way to go.</font color><hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Accurate compensation for all effects (squirt, swerve, throw, speed, distance, cue elevation, conditions, amount and type of English, etc.) requires great "feel" and "intuition" that can come only with lots of successful practice and experience. I still like backing up "feel" and "intuition" (F&amp;I) with "knowledge" and "understanding" (K&amp;U). I think many people can benefit from K&amp;U, which might help provide more confidence and less frustration while trying to develop F&amp;I.

Regards,
Dave

Deeman3
11-28-2007, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
The only analogy I can think of is shooting a rifle at a bullseye. If your sights cause you to hit 1" too high consistantly, then you know how to adjust. If your sight causes you to miss 2" too high, consistantly, then you know what you need to do. Just because one rifle missed by 1" vs 2" doesnt make it more accurate. You still missed the target.


Eric <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Nicely stated and a very good example you have made on accuracy vs. consistency. Deflection does not change the target, just the adjustment needed to hit that target. Some may find that it is, in fact, easier to adjust a litle more than to fine tune to a smaller/narrower target range as well. For some odd reason some of us feel we can hit 1 inch left of the bull's eye pretty well but might have a harder practical adjustment to make to hit 1/8 inch left of center. Guns and Pool! How can you lose? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

dr_dave
11-28-2007, 10:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> My answer hasn't changed. The error in estimating the amount of squirt for the low-squirt cue (approximately 1/16" in your example) will be less than the error in estimating the amount of squirt for the regular cue (1/8" in your example). Therefore, if you agree with the premises of my argument in the article (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2007/dec07.pdf), you would have a slightly higher percentage chance of pocketing the ball with the low-squirt cue, provided you are equally comfortable with both cues.<hr /></blockquote>
All I can say is that this topic is to Pool what Roe vs Wade is to abortion. Neither side has claimed any victory, but the support runs deep for both sides.

I appreciate the time and effort you made in you article, Dave. It has great points, but unfortunately, it is not the final word nor is it definitive proof. Like all hypothesis, it'sa good educated guess, but still unproven in real world situations.<hr /></blockquote>Well stated! I agree 100%! I also appreciate your efforts in the discussion and debate.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>I'll throw another thought out for debate:

The accuracy to pocket a ball/margin of error is not like throwing horseshoes where a smaller margin of error may get you more points. IMO, the accuracy to pocket a ball in Pool is fairly precise and close is not good enough. If you think about it, who cares if the hit is off by 1/16" or 1/2", both end up as a miss. There is no bonus for missing by a smaller margin.

The only analogy I can think of is shooting a rifle at a bullseye. If your sights cause you to hit 1" too high consistantly, then you know how to adjust. If your sight causes you to miss 2" too high, consistantly, then you know what you need to do. Just because one rifle missed by 1" vs 2" doesnt make it more accurate. You still missed the target.<hr /></blockquote>Well, this might start an entire new debate, but with typical pocket sizes on pool tables, there is quite a lot of margin for error. That's one reason why many simplified aiming methods (another possible huge debate) do a decent job for many shots. FYI, my November '04 through January '05 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) have lots of good illustrations and analysis results concerning shot margin-for-error for different shot speeds, angles to the pocket, and pocket type. The margin for error can be significant and can vary quite a lot from one shot to the next.

Regards,
Dave

Heretic
11-29-2007, 12:38 AM
First of all, Hello. I am obviously new here, but I have a unique perspective on this discussion, and thought this was as good a time as any to stop lurking and introduce myself. I am almost 37 years old and have been playing for about 30 years of that, but my game changed dramatically last year. I was in a serious motorcycle accident, and my hand was so badly shattered that I did not know if I would ever play again. When I did start trying again, my hand hurt so badly that I was not following through. It was bad enough that I gave up my position as the league team captain, and was going to quit the team, even though they had saved my place. Just as an experiment I picked up my buddys Meucci. It was 2oz heavier than my stick, and had a low deflection (black bulls eye) shaft. The impact was so much less in my hand, that I could run out the rack without the pain. I practiced with one of these exclusively for over 6 months. I basically had to learn my stroke all over again, and this was what I used. Now although my hand never completely recovered, I am able to use my normal stick again. I do see a slight difference in the way these sticks play, but after the amount of practice I have had with both sticks, I cannot say that one improves my game over the other. I never think about deflection when I am playing, and I adapt to the cue without ever realize I am doing it. I can quote all the benefits that these shafts are supposed to have over a conventional shaft, but I just don't see it. I even tried using the shaft on my old stick, just to see if it was the balance that made a difference, but was still not convinced.

dr_dave
11-30-2007, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Heretic:</font><hr> First of all, Hello. I am obviously new here<hr /></blockquote>Welcome to the best online pool forum on the planet!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Heretic:</font><hr>but I have a unique perspective on this discussion, and thought this was as good a time as any to stop lurking and introduce myself. I am almost 37 years old and have been playing for about 30 years of that, but my game changed dramatically last year. I was in a serious motorcycle accident, and my hand was so badly shattered that I did not know if I would ever play again. When I did start trying again, my hand hurt so badly that I was not following through. It was bad enough that I gave up my position as the league team captain, and was going to quit the team, even though they had saved my place. Just as an experiment I picked up my buddys Meucci. It was 2oz heavier than my stick, and had a low deflection (black bulls eye) shaft. The impact was so much less in my hand, that I could run out the rack without the pain. I practiced with one of these exclusively for over 6 months. I basically had to learn my stroke all over again, and this was what I used. Now although my hand never completely recovered, I am able to use my normal stick again. I do see a slight difference in the way these sticks play, but after the amount of practice I have had with both sticks, I cannot say that one improves my game over the other. I never think about deflection when I am playing, and I adapt to the cue without ever realize I am doing it. I can quote all the benefits that these shafts are supposed to have over a conventional shaft, but I just don't see it. I even tried using the shaft on my old stick, just to see if it was the balance that made a difference, but was still not convinced.<hr /></blockquote>I have heard similar stories. It sounds like you see no personal benefit in a low-squirt cues. Many people agree with you. The possible benefits of a low-squirt cue to a better player are debatable, hence my article and this thread. I don't have anything else to add at this point.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
11-30-2007, 02:25 PM
I haven't done the math...but on an 8 ft shot, with an aiming error of 1/8"....what would that be in inches, off target??
(it's been a long time since my geometry days)
let's see now...I know the side length, an estimate of angle B , don't care about the hypotenuse, need the base length...I'm lost
....but there's Google...
I'm estimating the angle at 2 degrees???
and get a aiming error of over 3 inches
3 degrees....over 5 inches
my math might be faulty???
web page (http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/triangle_solution_menu.htm)

Eric.
11-30-2007, 02:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I haven't done the math...but on an 8 ft shot, with an aiming error of 1/8"....what would that be in inches, off target??
(it's been a long time since my geometry days)
let's see now...I know the side length, an estimate of angle B , don't care about the hypotenuse, need the base length...I'm lost
....but there's Google...
I'm estimating the angle at 2 degrees???
and get a aiming error of over 3 inches
3 degrees....over 5 inches
my math might be faulty???
web page (http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/triangle_solution_menu.htm) <hr /></blockquote>

Jack,

I aint smart enough to do the math, but that is kinda what i was alluding to. Assuming that your calc's are somewhat on-the-money, then if you cut that error down 50% the result is still...a horrible miss.


Eric

dr_dave
11-30-2007, 03:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I haven't done the math...but on an 8 ft shot, with an aiming error of 1/8"....what would that be in inches, off target??
(it's been a long time since my geometry days)
let's see now...I know the side length, an estimate of angle B , don't care about the hypotenuse, need the base length...I'm lost
....but there's Google...
I'm estimating the angle at 2 degrees???
and get a aiming error of over 3 inches
3 degrees....over 5 inches
my math might be faulty???
web page (http://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/triangle_solution_menu.htm)<hr /></blockquote>CB and OB margin-for-error math is kind of besides the point, but if you want to see some, check out TP 3.4 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-4.pdf). I provide some plots and example numbers for OB and CB error margins for various types of shots.

Regards,
Dave

wolfdancer
11-30-2007, 05:25 PM
It looks like the aiming error allowance is small....no wonder i can't run 3 balls. Don Feeney's assertions, aside.....if the OB's angle of approach is on the 45 degree line (corner pocket to the opposite side pocket)this to me is the easiest cut shot in pool. Don claims that the corner pocket, effective opening never changes.
Thanks for the diagrams....have a good weekend

pooltchr
11-30-2007, 05:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Don claims that the corner pocket, effective opening never changes.
<hr /></blockquote>

Only when you are on the money ball!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

dr_dave
11-30-2007, 08:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>... Don claims that the corner pocket, effective opening never changes.<hr /></blockquote>Taking only geometry and physics into consideration (i.e., ignoring psychological effects), the effective sizes and target centers of the pockets most definitely do change with speed and angle to the pocket. See my November '04 through January '05 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) for lots of illustrations and examples showing why this is true.

Regards,
Dave

Heretic
11-30-2007, 10:24 PM
Not to confuse the subject, but is the idea of a low squirt cue really that new?. How many of us here shoot with a narrowed shaft, with a long pro taper, and tight growth rings? The technology might be lower, but aren't we looking for the same effect?

mikepage
12-01-2007, 08:25 AM
Here's something I wrote a decade ago on the issue. And if you're truly a glutton for this sort of thing, look at the whole thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.billiard/browse_thread/thread/398fb142ec099a07/50ebeb9bf078b5d0

You'll find lots of discussion by me, shepard, jewett, johnson, Thomas Wayne, and others about whether low squirt is better, a bible fight between Thomas Wayne and me, and a discussion of whether Mr. Wayne really was the first to point the role of endmass in squirt.....

*************
Patrick said
&gt; I've heard three claims along these lines:

&gt; 1. (Mike Page) Squirt can compensate for errant hits because squirt works in
&gt; the opposite direction of the error (hit too far right, squirt sends the cue
&gt; ball back to the left).

&gt;I believe this, but think its usefulness is limited to sticks with pivot points
&gt; close to the bridge length (high-squirt sticks), making the tradeoff a

bad bet.

I reposted this argument yesterday under the "Predator Confusing?"
thread. Squirt is "self correcting" for any pivot point and bridge length
as long as the bridge length remains less than twice the pivot point.
This pretty much includes all sticks and bridge lengths. Squirt is most
correcting when the bridge length is equal to the pivot point, but it's
still correcting under usual circumstances. For example, for an 18 inch
pivot point stick (pretty common in my experience) a nine inch bridge
allows twice the stroke slop as does the same shot with a hypothetical
squirtless stick. This is true for shots with english as well as for
centerball shots. So even with centerball shots, a squirty stick will
tend to correct inadvertant off-center hits.

This sounds great, but a trade off is that with-english shots are harder
to aim in the first place because the compensation for squirt is larger.

I really don't know how this trade off really plays out, but here are some
considerations for who might benefit from a squirty stick.

1. A player who really does use a large majority of centerball hits and
who generally uses sidespin only on easy shots.

This player gets the benefit of squirt without much of the downside.
Centerball shots require no correction for squirt, so there's no tough aim
compensation to negotiate. But when the player actually strokes the shot,
the squirtier stick is more forgiving of stroke problems. On easy shots
with english, the larger aim compensation is not so tough to achieve
accurately enough.

2. A player of any style who is limited by the physical ability to
execute a steady stroke. I go to a fair number of seminars for which the
speakers use a laser pointer (like a tiny narrow-beamed flash light) to
point to things on a big screen. For some people the little red dot stays
in one spot. For others, it seems to move all over the place, even though
they're trying to point to one particular spot. I imagine there's a limit
to just how precisely these people could stroke a cue, even after years of
practice. The aiming part (deciding the orientation of the cue before the
shot) has I think a component that is only knowledge as well as a
component that is physical. The knowledge part is deciding the ghost-ball
spot and the adjustments for throw, swerve, and squirt for the given
tip-offset, shot speed, and stick elevation. I believe there's no limit
to how much we can improve in this area. The physical part is laying the
stick down in this orientation. This is limited by eyesight as well as
maybe slop in visual perception.

Here's an experiment I'd like to see. Take some good players to some
equipment where you can get a tough long straight-in shot. Maybe on a
9-foot table with very tight pockets or on a snooker table. [Maybe you'd
have to make it a combination shot to make it tough enough (one ball near
corner pocket, another near center of the table, and cue ball near the
corner diagonally across the table). Allow the several players to shoot
firmly the straight-in centerball shot many times both with a 50 inch
pivot point stick and with a 16 inch pivot point stick and report the
results. The straight-in centerball shot eliminates the knowledge part,
and the correct aim is the same for both sticks.

*******************

dr_dave
12-01-2007, 02:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Heretic:</font><hr> Not to confuse the subject, but is the idea of a low squirt cue really that new?. How many of us here shoot with a narrowed shaft, with a long pro taper, and tight growth rings? The technology might be lower, but aren't we looking for the same effect?<hr /></blockquote>I think the Predators and OB-1 are fairly "new." They have taken extra measures (drill out the end of the shaft, smaller diameter, smaller and lighter ferrule, etc.) to reduce the endmass and squirt even more than "older" cues.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
12-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Mike,

Thanks a bunch for the link. I read the whole thread. I bet another 10 years from now, the same debate will reappear again. In addition to your well-written post, I also liked Ron Shepard's reply below.

Regards,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RonShepard:</font><hr>I agree with Mike Page's explanation of this data: a squirty stick is
compensating for a faulty stroke (artificially simulated in this case --
nice experiemnt! :-). I do not believe that this supports the use of
squirty sticks for the following reasons.

1) Just because squirt with a squirty stick compensates for a faulty
stroke does not mean that the object ball will be pocketed. A faulty
stroke that results in unintentional sidespin will result in unintentional
swerve, and depending on the shot speed and distances, will still result
in a miss. Consistency on all shots can be achieved only with a straight
stroke.

2) For a break shot, where swerve is not so much an issue, the shooter
wants to hit the cue ball as close to the center as possible for the
maximum transfer of energy. Even though squirt can compensate for a
faulty stroke regarding the hit on the object ball, an off-center hit on
the cue ball still results in a less than optimal energy transfer. A good
break shot requires a center-ball hit on the cue ball *and* an accurate
hit on the object ball. One without the other isn't good enough. [BTW,
this is also why I don't think a flat tip gives as much of an advantage in
a break cue as I used to. It eliminates the unwanted spin problem, for
variations up to 1/2 a tip at least, but it doesn't fix the problem with a
square hit on the object ball.]

3) The judgement required for squirt adjustment is less for low-squirt
sticks than for squirty sticks. I think that this judgement is more of a
limitation than stroke execution errors for most players, but I don't know
of an experiment that would prove or disprove this conjecture.

$.02 -Ron Shepard<hr /></blockquote>

Heretic
12-02-2007, 02:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Mike,

Thanks a bunch for the link. I read the whole thread. I bet another 10 years from now, the same debate will reappear again. In addition to your well-written post, I also liked Ron Shepard's reply below.

Regards,
Dave
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RonShepard:</font><hr>I agree with Mike Page's explanation of this data: a squirty stick is
compensating for a faulty stroke (artificially simulated in this case --
nice experiemnt! :-). I do not believe that this supports the use of
squirty sticks for the following reasons.

1) Just because squirt with a squirty stick compensates for a faulty
stroke does not mean that the object ball will be pocketed. A faulty
stroke that results in unintentional sidespin will result in unintentional
swerve, and depending on the shot speed and distances, will still result
in a miss. Consistency on all shots can be achieved only with a straight
stroke.

2) For a break shot, where swerve is not so much an issue, the shooter
wants to hit the cue ball as close to the center as possible for the
maximum transfer of energy. Even though squirt can compensate for a
faulty stroke regarding the hit on the object ball, an off-center hit on
the cue ball still results in a less than optimal energy transfer. A good
break shot requires a center-ball hit on the cue ball *and* an accurate
hit on the object ball. One without the other isn't good enough. [BTW,
this is also why I don't think a flat tip gives as much of an advantage in
a break cue as I used to. It eliminates the unwanted spin problem, for
variations up to 1/2 a tip at least, but it doesn't fix the problem with a
square hit on the object ball.]

3) The judgement required for squirt adjustment is less for low-squirt
sticks than for squirty sticks. I think that this judgement is more of a
limitation than stroke execution errors for most players, but I don't know
of an experiment that would prove or disprove this conjecture.

$.02 -Ron Shepard<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

But isn't that what meucci was looking for back in the 90s with the red dot shaft? Granted they were not really hi-tech, but wasn't the desired result?. (I know there were others doing the same thing, but the red dot shaft was the first to advertise a "High Performance" shaft)

pooltchr
12-02-2007, 07:57 AM
As I recall, the red dot shaft was marketed as a way to make sure you always had the shaft oriented the same way. It was supposed to make it more consistant by having the spine of the wood in the same place on every shot. I don't remember them marketing it as a low squirt shaft.
Steve

Ralph_Kramden
12-02-2007, 10:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> As I recall, the red dot shaft was marketed as a way to make sure you always had the shaft oriented the same way. It was supposed to make it more consistant by having the spine of the wood in the same place on every shot. I don't remember them marketing it as a low squirt shaft.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

I think you could find the spine of shaft on any cue yourself. Most shafts, but not all, will bend easier toward one side when pressure is applied. Some won't bend much but some will bend more easily than others.

Lay the cue on the table with the shaft on the table and the butt end on the rail. Push down on the cue near the joint and see how the shaft bends. Turn it over 180 degrees and do it again. Do the same thing all around the diameter of the shaft.

If the cue bends easier when pressure is applied in a certain direction you could put a mark on that side just as some cue makers do.

Billy_Bob
12-02-2007, 11:53 AM
Also there is a "radial laminated" shaft. This is wedge shaped pieces of wood glued together in a pie shape. My Predator is like this. Look at the end of the shaft and there are lines like a pizza cut up.

So in theory this cue would play the same no matter which way it was turned.

Heretic
12-02-2007, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Billy_Bob:</font><hr> Also there is a "radial laminated" shaft. This is wedge shaped pieces of wood glued together in a pie shape. My Predator is like this. Look at the end of the shaft and there are lines like a pizza cut up.

So in theory this cue would play the same no matter which way it was turned.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree with that, but that really was not the point I was going after here. My point simply was that the idea of a low squirt really isn't new. While there is new technology involved, manufacturers like meucci were trying to cut down on squirt 10 years ago. I used the red dot shaft as an example only because it was the first production cue to address this point. positioning of the shaft aside, the red dot shafts were narrow, with a long pro taper, making them more flexible, thus causing less squirt. I really was not trying to compare the new technology to the old, I was pointing out that the idea of decreasing squirt has been around for quite a while.