PDA

View Full Version : Which high performance shaft?



bignick31985
07-27-2008, 04:03 PM
There are a bunch out there. The Tiger, Predator, McDermott, Universal Smartshaft and OB1 shafts all look good. But which one would be the better investment?

None are cheap. Actually they will cost as much as I paid for my Lucasi. But I'm looking to step up to the next level and really are interested in one of these shafts.

Also, I know you guys would suggest playing with each one before choosing, but that isnt possible, unfortunately. How should I choose?

Also will these shafts play differently with a Quick tip, versus an Everest? Pretty much I'm wondering if upgrading the shaft and using a Moori Quick tip is going to actually make a difference in feel and such. Or is it reccomended to change up tips when you make the jump to a higher performance shaft? I've been tossing around the idea of putting a Kamui on and trying it out. But its hard to let go of the Moori Quick, lol.

Anitokids review of the OB1 is leaning me towards that one so far. But its been tough to find reviews. Although on AZBilliards the feelings there go both ways. Some say the OB1 is a 'soft' hit, and then the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement.

So I dont know, lol.

JJFSTAR
07-27-2008, 04:59 PM
Big question good luck I have a McDermott I2 and I can say it is absolutely wonderful. My student has a Lucasi and he has a bulls eye black dot on it and he loves it. In fact now that I think about it everyone who has a low deflection shaft is really happy about theirs.

pooltchr
07-27-2008, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Big question good luck I have a McDermott I2 and I can say it is absolutely wonderful. My student has a Lucasi and he has a bulls eye black dot on it and he loves it. In fact now that I think about it everyone who has a low deflection shaft is really happy about theirs. </div></div>

I guess I must be a little strange. I have a "low deflection" shaft in my case, but I haven't used it in over a year. The one that came with my cue works just fine. But then, it's just a piece of wood with a leather tip on it...it really doesn't do a lot of work. I seem to end up doing all the work. It just sits there in my hand. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Steve

1Time
07-28-2008, 01:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bignick31985</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a bunch out there. The Tiger, Predator, McDermott, Universal Smartshaft and OB1 shafts all look good. But which one would be the better investment?

None are cheap. Actually they will cost as much as I paid for my Lucasi. But I'm looking to step up to the next level and really are interested in one of these shafts.

Also, I know you guys would suggest playing with each one before choosing, but that isnt possible, unfortunately. How should I choose?</div></div>
There's no guarantee any one of these shafts will help you shoot better pool, and you very well could be mistaken to believe one of them would better result in your game being raised to a higher level better than some other cue. So if you're set on buying one, I suggest it best to buy the one with the best return policy or has the best resale value.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bignick31985</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also will these shafts play differently with a Quick tip, versus an Everest? Pretty much I'm wondering if upgrading the shaft and using a Moori Quick tip is going to actually make a difference in feel and such. Or is it reccomended to change up tips when you make the jump to a higher performance shaft? I've been tossing around the idea of putting a Kamui on and trying it out. But its hard to let go of the Moori Quick, lol.</div></div>
The shafts probably will retain very similar shooting characteristics for you with different tips; and you likely would find you prefer one tip over another. The tip and the shaft make a difference, and each could be considerable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess I must be a little strange. I have a "low deflection" shaft in my case, but I haven't used it in over a year. The one that came with my cue works just fine. But then, it's just a piece of wood with a leather tip on it...it really doesn't do a lot of work. I seem to end up doing all the work. It just sits there in my hand. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif</div></div>
I doubt I would prefer any of those low deflection shafts to my current playing cue, and I've tried red dot and black dot Meucci shafts before. But my preference and anyone else's should not mean much to bignick. What should matter most is what works best for a particular player, and there's no way to know that without a comparison. Note too that pooltchr prefers his playing cue to his low deflection shaft, which is to say for this archer the arrow matters.

SpiderMan
07-28-2008, 10:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bignick31985</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a bunch out there. The Tiger, Predator, McDermott, Universal Smartshaft and OB1 shafts all look good. But which one would be the better investment?

None are cheap. Actually they will cost as much as I paid for my Lucasi. But I'm looking to step up to the next level and really are interested in one of these shafts.

Also, I know you guys would suggest playing with each one before choosing, but that isnt possible, unfortunately. How should I choose?

Also will these shafts play differently with a Quick tip, versus an Everest? Pretty much I'm wondering if upgrading the shaft and using a Moori Quick tip is going to actually make a difference in feel and such. Or is it reccomended to change up tips when you make the jump to a higher performance shaft? I've been tossing around the idea of putting a Kamui on and trying it out. But its hard to let go of the Moori Quick, lol.

Anitokids review of the OB1 is leaning me towards that one so far. But its been tough to find reviews. Although on AZBilliards the feelings there go both ways. Some say the OB1 is a 'soft' hit, and then the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement.

So I dont know, lol. </div></div>

I will only comment on the Predator and OB1, as they are the only shafts among your choices with which I have significant play time.

Both are so-called "low-squirt" shafts. In other words, when you apply sidespin, the cueball's direction of travel will deviate less from parallel to the stick's centerline (as compared to a conventional shaft). This means you don't have to "aim off" quite as much to compensate for the cueball squirt. This may be an advantage to your game, or not, depending on your skill level and style of play. I've also internally examined both shafts. They use similar technology to achieve low squirt. The shafts are hollowed out for a substantial amount of the front portion to achieve lower "end mass".

Both are radially-laminated construction, more or less, though not identical to one another. This construction should, in theory, result in much improved warp resistance over time (compared to conventional shafts or even flat-laminated shafts).

Both the Predator and the OB-1 seem much more prone to picking up dents and dings than a good conventional shaft. Additionally, I've known a couple of folks with OB-1s who experienced little "splinters" lifting out of the wood surface. It may be that manufacturers of radially-laminated stock are now less careful about choice of raw material, or perhaps less careful in keeping the wood grain absolutely parallel to the surface of the shaft.

Comparing the feel of the two shafts, I'd definitely say the OB-1 has a softer hit than the 12.75-mm Predator. I'd tend to say this is because the OB-1 has a soft wooden ferrule, but I'm admittedly guessing. The difference is significant enough that you really will feel it, so whoever told you to shoot with both was giving good advice.

Finally, I'll add that I've known and shot with Royce Bunnell (OB-1) for many years, and he seems to be good people. I've never heard of anyone having a problem that he did not deal with in a businesslike and honest manner. But you need to choose the shaft that will feel best to you.

SpiderMan

bignick31985
07-28-2008, 03:23 PM
As far as skill level goes, I worked up to a 6 relatively quickly and now I'm a 7. Each league night (3 days a week) I can usually put together 2 break and runs out of the 5-7 games I have to play. With the others (unless its a safety battle) being 1-2 innings tops. However, some nights (usually Thursday) I suffer from a 'just can't do it' syndrome. I've been trying to overcome the feeling that everyone expects me to never let them shoot when I play. And its been hard to get into the mode of getting that extra game. But its coming.

I've been using a Lucasi cue and I like the hit, but I know I've become accustomed to how it plays. Its equipped with a Quick tip, which I love, butI have played with no soft or medium/soft tips, so I have no direct comparison.

As far as trying one out, there is a guy that uses a 314 Second Gen shaft on a Viking cue. I believe we play his team very soon, so I will see if he'll let me play a rack or two with that stick and see if I like how the 314 plays. At least that will either eliminate or add one shaft option.


Also, and I dont know if this matters, I dont usually strike balls really hard. However as you guys know some shots just take a real stroke to get down and get position. I didnt know if the softness of the OB1 would affect that, or perhaps cause it to prematurely be damaged.

Seems odd as well, that nobody would really want to even hold a 30 second conversation when I was a 5 or 6...but when the jump to 7 was made it seemed that the other 6's and 7's couldnt talk enough, lol. Which is welcome, b/c they've shown me some things I didnt previously recognize and its fun as hell playing against such good competition.

I'm not gonna lie though it sorta sucks being matched up against a 2 just so that team can see if the 2 can knock you off.

And THANK YOU guys for the input. Whichever decision I make (if I make one, lol) I'll be sure to post up my personal opinion and experience with the shaft...just to further help anyone else looking for another opinion.

JimS
07-28-2008, 05:42 PM
I do not like the OB1. It's just too mushy feeling to me. I tried an X hard Talisman to no avail.

Now I'm playing with a Pedator Z2 and with a Taliaman X hard on my Sailor playing cue(s). I like the feel, the size (stock 11.75 now reduced to 11.5mm)and the low deflection.

I've not noticed any tendancy to nick or dent.

Rich R.
07-28-2008, 06:59 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

THANK YOU!
I am always amazed at how many people fall for all of the hype about all of the after market shafts. The bottom line is, all shafts deflect a certain amount, some more than others. It is only through practice, and refining your stroke, that you learn to play with any shaft, including the after market, "low deflection" shafts. I also find that most of the after market shafts feel dead and provide little or no feedback. I'm a firm believer in buying a good quality cue, from a cue maker you like, and learning how to use it.

You can't buy a good pool game, you have to develope one.

Deeman3
07-29-2008, 08:00 AM
Rich,

I agree with you. If there were no "new" shafts out there the game would be played just as well by most players.

DeadCrab
07-29-2008, 08:47 AM
I estimate the pivot point for my no-frills McDermott to be about 11" from the cue tip. This is good for me, as I typically bridge in that neighborhood. So, I really do not think I would gain much by using a low-deflection shaft for most shots.

I have, however, noticed that this cue has a lot of deflection when I am in-tight, and have to use a short bridge. Would this be solved with a low-deflection shaft?

Basic question I have is whether a low deflection shaft has significantly better performance over a wide range of bridge lengths. If they do, they might offer an advantage under playing circumstances that force a lot of short bridges.

bignick31985
07-30-2008, 03:57 PM
Well I took the plunge...

I ordered the Tiger X Ultra shaft from Seyberts. And went ahead and got a Moori III Quick tip put on, instead of the standard Sniper.

Guess in a few days it'll be here for me to test. So I'll give a good comparison between the standard Lucasi shaft and the Tiger X Ultra shaft. Thats another reason for me getting the Quick tip. Easy, direct comparison, and no way to say the tip is the cause of anything, lol. I also figure since I'm pretty well used to the Quick tip, the transition to the new shaft might be easier. If I can I'll try to get some video up as well.

Thanks for your input guys! It was much appreciated!

JJFSTAR
07-30-2008, 06:20 PM
First off let me say that I very much prefer the new technology that now isn’t all that new. We have had low deflection shafts since the early 1990’s.When Predator first came out with it I couldn’t shoot with it. I was used to McDermott and granted McDermott is known for its balance between action and distortion. Mucci is known for its high action and Predator is known for its work to limit distortion.

Since then we have had many companies duplicate this technology because (I presume) they don’t want their butts fitted with shafts from another cue maker. However like all things that are touted as “the answer” it is simply not true. There is a give and a take to all pool equipment just like everything else in this life.

You can’t make a cue that doesn’t deflect much without taking something away. With the new tech cues what you give up is action. You can do a good job with balancing that out to fit the personal style of a player but that’s about it. The bulls’ eye black dot says that it has done that perfectly for every kind of cue, making that claim in and of itself raises suspicion.

This is the reason I am uncomfortable with categorizing these shafts as “high performance” I much prefer the term “dampening” to Rich they feel dead and give him a different feel when the stick contacts the CB and leaves him with less connection to the stick. With Steve they just don’t do much of anything for him, 1Time doesn’t think they would do anything either and he has tried a black dot shaft. So why in the world would any of these players want to use a dampening cue? The answer is that they probably shouldn’t.

I would speculate (but not state) that all 3 of these players are highly experienced at shooting balls at long distances with English (meaning right and left spin and not follow and draw exclusively) over a long period of time and have therefore incorporated deflection into their game solidly.

Until I got my I2 (that is part of a line of dampening sticks made by McDermott) I would avoid shots of this type like the plague and would use speed, follow or draw to gain position rather than let’s say for giggles strait follow right (1:30 to those of you who use a clock) and almost never used just left. The fact is that these sticks do nothing or almost nothing for you until you diverge from the vertical line and yes to a certain extent hurt you when you need max follow or draw and the pot is easy.

The I2 has given me the confidence to shoot these shots like never before in my playing life and that may have as much to do with my improvement at that time as did the actual physical dynamics of the shaft, who knows.

These shafts are all surprisingly different. I recommend doing ongoing investigation and getting the one that really suits your game just like any other cue. The advantage of being able to hit the CB to the right or left and have it go in almost a straight line is huge FOR MY GAME; some people use right and left much less often. People like me who have the weakness of not having a natural or experienced awareness of how much deflection will occur over what distance are going to love these sticks. Good luck.

pooltchr
07-30-2008, 07:11 PM
Very nice post! All the talk about which shaft is better or does this or that seems to be a lot of wasted energy. No one shaft is necessarily "better" than another. OTOH, they are frequently quite different. Better for me may be worse for you...but different...I think we would all agree on that.

What is better is what is better for each individual. It makes me wonder when someone posts a thread asking which shaft they should buy...when nobody knows except the poster. If he or she has to ask, then it probably doesn't make any difference anyway!

Steve

bignick31985
07-31-2008, 02:45 PM
One thing I picked up while reading about the different shafts is that the Tiger (from reading...not personal experience yet) does not have as low deflection as the Predator, OB1 or similar. So I'm presuming the hit wont feel as dead...but its all a guess. I figure I'll try it out, get a feel for it and then decide if I like it or not.

I know all opinions are subjective to the poster and his/her liking. But its good to get all sorts of input, especially when I'm considering purchasing one.

I can't see myself trying to play differently thinking the shaft is going to make the difference.

But thats a very good post!

jondrums
07-31-2008, 05:41 PM
I think it might be helpful to mention at this point that there is no direct relationship between "low-deflection" and "laminated" shafts!!!

It is my understanding that laminated shafts (314, Z2, OB1, TigerX, BlackDot, AnnieO, I2, ect) are laminated to simulate a very tight straight grained piece of maple. I think this is a very effective way to use standard off-the-shelf maple wood and automated production tools to create a very consistent product. One would practically have to do this if you're trying to make thousands of shafts that all perform the same. You can't afford the human factor to inspect, grade, dry, age, and progressively turn every piece of maple when you're trying to create a pool shaft empire! Laminated shafts effectively solve this problem. For my money, I'd rather hire an expert to select a premium piece of maple wood rather than spend it on a company that uses a cheaper, simpler, more scalable approach because they have higher overhead costs (marketing, ect).

The term "low deflection" refers to how much a cue will cause a CB to "squirt" off angle from the axis of the cue when applying english. This is a function of ferrule weight, shaft diameter, and the stiffness of last few inches of shaft. "Low Deflection" can be accomplished many ways, most notably by drilling a hole in the end of shaft and using a shorter ferule to reduce the weight. Reducing the shaft diameter will also help reduce the endmass and thus the "deflection". A regular maple shaft can be made as a low-deflection shaft just as well as a laminated one can.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention that laminated shafts are not inherently low deflection, and vice versa.

Jon

Rich R.
08-01-2008, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bignick31985</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One thing I picked up while reading about the different shafts is that the Tiger (from reading...not personal experience yet) does not have as low deflection as the Predator, OB1 or similar. So I'm presuming the hit wont feel as dead...but its all a guess. I figure I'll try it out, get a feel for it and then decide if I like it or not.</div></div>
Although I haven't tried the Tiger shafts, I have found that the OB1 shaft has a much better feel to it than the Predator shafts. If someone just couldn't live without an after market shaft, I would recommend the OB1.

av84fun
08-07-2008, 02:32 AM
What surprises me most about the hundreds of similar threads on the various forums is that so many people are dismissive of technological innovation in sporting equipment.

No tennis or golf pro in their right minds would revert to racquet/club technology of many years ago and for those same reasons, I think it is a mistake to be dismissive of new technology in pool cues.

No two trees are exactly alike and from the same tree different cuemakers will fashion shafts that behave very differently.

One of the POSSIBLE benefits of new tech shafts is that...better or worse...they are more consistent from one shaft to the next.

As far as L/D is concerned, the reduction of a variable is a fundamentally good thing IMHO. The greater the variable, the more skilled the player must be to account for it.

That is not to say that no custom shaft can be produced in such a way to minimize squirt vs. some other custom shaft or that all custom shafts deflect A LOT more than the L/D shafts.

But due to the natural variation that is fundamental and inescapable with wood, it is only a matter of time before it will be replaced entirely (instead of partially as is now the case with many new tech shafts)....just as wooden "woods" and tennis rackets have been relegated to history in golf and tennis...and for exactly the same reasons.

I know...I know...Efren can beat us all with a broom handle...but I don't recall seeing him use one on tour.

Regards,
Jim

HALHOULE
08-07-2008, 04:01 AM
RATHER THAN FOOL AROUND WITH SHAFTS, WHY NOT FIRST LEARN A PROFESSIONAL AIMING SYSTEM, AS THE PROS DO, THEN YOU WOULD BE ON YOUR WAY, OTHER WISE, YOU WILL NOT GET TO PLAY WITH THE BIG BOYS.
THINK ABOUT IT, WHEN YOU ARE READY, LET ME KNOW AND I WILL HELP YOU GET THERE. THE FIRST THING WE WILL DO IS TEACH YOU A PROFESSIONAL AIMING SYSTEM. THEN WE WILL GO FROM THERE.

HAL HOULE

bignick31985
08-09-2008, 10:10 AM
It did come in, I just havent had time to get some pictures up. I'm going to try to in the next day or so.

As far as my first impressions go...it hits great and feels great. I mean it feels really nice playing on the cue I have. It feels alot different when compared side by side to the standard Lucasi shaft. To me it feels lighter. Regardless, I like how it hits.

I havent had a chance to try it out side by side with the Lucasi shaft, but I will.

And for the professional aiming system? Could you send me a PM with some information on it? If it really would help me advance, then I wouldnt want to turn down a chance to improve. Thanks again!

JoeW
08-09-2008, 11:56 AM
There is a phenomena known as the "hello / good-bye effect." Essentially it goes like this, "Hello doctor I am sick." Some time later, "Good-bye doctor, I feel so much better." Basically if you pay enough money then you have to justify to yourself why you did that. The "best" explanation is because the doctor helped me. So beware, in yourself or others who have spent a lot of money for some project and now must justify their expense to their own satisfaction.

Part two. Low deflection shafts can be and have been tested. They do indeed produce lower deflection than other shafts. This allows the player to use less english during play. These are not opinions, these are facts. If control of one's stroke is the objective then low deflection shafts will improve one's game if the player takes the time to learn how to use it.

Point three. There is a story about a physician in the 1900s who was shown the new chenical technology for testing diabetes. His reply was that he preferred what he learned in medical school -- taste the urnine if it is sweet the patient probably has diabetes. Some people just have to go with what they learned others adapt to the new technology for the benefits it brings.

All this from the proud owner of a Z2 -- now why did I buy and use that shaft on my $2,000 playing cue. Boy that takes a lot of justification.

Hmm I guess all that I can conclude is that new technology is worth evaluating for the potential benefits that some good hearted soul put into the effort to make the game better and make a buck.

decisions, decisions, decisions.

1Time
08-10-2008, 01:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part two. Low deflection shafts can be and have been tested. They do indeed produce lower deflection than other shafts. This allows the player to use less english during play. These are not opinions, these are facts. If control of one's stroke is the objective then low deflection shafts will improve one's game if the player takes the time to learn how to use it.

Point three. There is a story about a physician in the 1900s who was shown the new chenical technology for testing diabetes. His reply was that he preferred what he learned in medical school -- taste the urnine if it is sweet the patient probably has diabetes. Some people just have to go with what they learned others adapt to the new technology for the benefits it brings.

All this from the proud owner of a Z2 -- now why did I buy and use that shaft on my $2,000 playing cue. Boy that takes a lot of justification.

Hmm I guess all that I can conclude is that new technology is worth evaluating for the potential benefits that some good hearted soul put into the effort to make the game better and make a buck.

decisions, decisions, decisions. </div></div>

JoeW, are you saying a player could shoot better pool with a low deflection (squirt) shaft than with a higher deflection shaft if they took enough time to learn how to use it? And if so, upon what do you base this finding or speculation? Just trying to understand this newer point of view. Are there players being propelled into world class competition as a direct result of them learning to use these technoligically newer shafts? Or, what?

av84fun
08-10-2008, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a phenomena known as the "hello / good-bye effect." Essentially it goes like this, "Hello doctor I am sick." Some time later, "Good-bye doctor, I feel so much better." Basically if you pay enough money then you have to justify to yourself why you did that. The "best" explanation is because the doctor helped me. So beware, in yourself or others who have spent a lot of money for some project and now must justify their expense to their own satisfaction.

Part two. Low deflection shafts can be and have been tested. They do indeed produce lower deflection than other shafts. This allows the player to use less english during play. These are not opinions, these are facts. If control of one's stroke is the objective then low deflection shafts will improve one's game if the player takes the time to learn how to use it.

Point three. There is a story about a physician in the 1900s who was shown the new chenical technology for testing diabetes. His reply was that he preferred what he learned in medical school -- taste the urnine if it is sweet the patient probably has diabetes. Some people just have to go with what they learned others adapt to the new technology for the benefits it brings.

All this from the proud owner of a Z2 -- now why did I buy and use that shaft on my $2,000 playing cue. Boy that takes a lot of justification.

Hmm I guess all that I can conclude is that new technology is worth evaluating for the potential benefits that some good hearted soul put into the effort to make the game better and make a buck.

decisions, decisions, decisions. </div></div>

Joe, I assume you meant to say that the L/D shafts allow the player to use MORE english and get less squirt than would be the case with a traditional shaft.

By using LESS english you reduce the advantage of L/D relative to traditional.

But I fully agree that, all other things being equal, L/D is fundamentally superior in that it reduces a critical variable that must be compensated for...essentially by guessing.

If the laws of physics could be suspended and a shaft built that would produce ZERO squirt, I doubt there would be a pro in the world who would not use it.

To use an opposite extreme for the sake of making the point, I don't think there is a pro in the world who instructs his custom cue maker to build a cue with the MAXIMUM possible squirt.

So, I think that regarding squirt, less is better with the single exception of those who play JAM UP with standard shafts and who correctly have concluded that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I clearly remember the EXACT SAME arguments when "metal woods" were first introduced. Now, there are no wood woods left and for the simple, undeniable reason that they are technologically superior. DITTO with tennis rackets when the purists chided those playing with "plastic" rackets!

Aviation is the same. Metal is FAR from the optimal material to build aircraft out of and Composite Fiber is making rapid inroads in replacing metal. In 20 years...30 tops...there won't be much metal left in commercial/military aircraft.

Just as true re: the above, wood is FAR from the optimal material from which to build pool cues and except for collector value and the ARTISTRY of wooden cues (as opposed to playability) pool cues will be largely synthetic in 20 years.

Predator is already leading the charge. The materials are already in existence. All that remains is to conform them in an optimal fashion and for the prices to come down.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-10-2008, 03:36 AM
1Time, I commented to some extent in another post but if I may jump in here...no one is being "propelled" to fame and glory by using new tech shafts. That's far too dramatic a proposition.

Again using metal woods as an analogy, one of their key benefits is a larger and better positioned sweet spot. Early on, the argument was that the pros are so good that they hit balls on the existing sweet spot most of the time so the larger area wouldn't benefit them.

But the phrase "most of the time" is the operative issue. Pros DO make less-than-perfect passes at the ball. Hell, Tiger often sprays his drives all over the place..and then kills everyone with his irons and putter!

But the pros...to a man...(and woman) decided they WANTED the bigger sweet spot and the larger club face which could not possibly be produced from wood. (metal woods are mostly hollow and hollow wood could not stand the impace forces...among other things).

They don't NEED the new technology all the time but when they need it, that want it.

The same thinking holds true for new tech shafts. When hitting centerball or nearly so, there isn't much of a L/D advantage but the further off center the hit is, the more of an advantage there is to L/D.

What if you had to turn the steering wheel in your car 45 degrees to get the car to turn 10 degrees. Sure, you could get used to it and do pretty well MOST of the time. But when you see the deer in your headlights some dark night in the Interstate going 75 mph you do NOT want to yank your wheel 45 degrees so when you NEED direct steering, you have it.

Bottom line, the argument is that a reduction of the magnitude of variables that must be compensated for results in a fundamental advantage. Not necessarily a HUGE advantage at any given moment but if new tech golf clubs are only were worth one quarter of one shot per hole, then the new tech guy beats the old tech field by 18 strokes in a 72 hole match!

Regards,
Jim

1Time
08-10-2008, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SpiderMan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But you need to choose the shaft that will feel best to you.</div></div>
No way to know which one that might be without first trying it. And, what difference should its feel make if you can't shoot well with it? Try different shafts / cues and go with the one you shoot best with, and that may not be the one that "feels" best.

1Time
08-10-2008, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...no one is being "propelled" to fame and glory by using new tech shafts. That's far too dramatic a proposition.</div></div>So, the ones who are being propelled to fame and glory do not use this new technology? If so, then something seems to be amiss. As applicable or debatable as your analogies may be, I prefer a more direct and specific discussion; so I will bypass them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same thinking holds true for new tech shafts. When hitting centerball or nearly so, there isn't much of a L/D advantage but the further off center the hit is, the more of an advantage there is to L/D.</div></div>So from this it seems this new technology offers a bigger advantage to those who apply spin to the cue ball, than to beginners who still have not learned how.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line, the argument is that a reduction of the magnitude of variables that must be compensated for results in a fundamental advantage. </div></div>So let me see if I have this right. This new technology simplifies (reduces) the variables as compared to a higher deflection (squirt) shaft. And that simplification or reduction is the advantage. And by advantage that must mean people who learn to use this technology should be able to shoot better with it than if they shot with a higher deflection (squirt) shaft, that is, once they learn to compensate for the simplification / reduction / advantage. Is that pretty much it, or is there more to it than this, or do I have it wrong?

JoeW
08-10-2008, 05:44 AM
1Time said, "So let me see if I have this right. This new technology simplifies (reduces) the variables as compared to a higher deflection (squirt) shaft. And that simplification or reduction is the advantage. And by advantage that must mean people who learn to use this technology should be able to shoot better with it than if they shot with a higher deflection (squirt) shaft, that is, once they learn to compensate for the simplification / reduction / advantage. Is that pretty much it, or is there more to it than this, or do I have it wrong?"

I think that this is a good summary of what the new technology brings.

Personally I liked av84fun's anologies. They add to the idea. One may not like the new technology but it does work. Heck I do not like some of the laws of physics that I encounter on a pool table but I have to live with them. :-)

av84fun said, "Joe, I assume you meant to say that the L/D shafts allow the player to use MORE english and get less squirt than would be the case with a traditional shaft."

Yes that is what I intended. Thank you for the clairification. Alternatively one could say that you get less deflection for the same amount of offset but I am not sure this is true given different tip diameters and player's ability to determine what they actually do when hitting a CB.

The basis for my opinion is the tests that have been conducted by several people (replication across several studies). Or am I just resolving dissonance? My personal experince leads to the conclusion that the studies are correct. Will it work for every player? I do not know. Given that the new technology is an improvement in the stick's characteristics, not the player's, then it should work for everyone.

Rich R.
08-10-2008, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If control of one's stroke is the objective then low deflection shafts will improve one's game if the player takes the time to learn how to use it. </div></div>
Joe, on the other side of this coin, if a player is using a higher deflection shaft, wouldn't he improve his game if he took the time to learn how to use it?

The learning curve may be shortened by the low deflection shafts, but, to become proficient with any shaft, there is a certain amount of learning, practice and playing involved.

There is also another point to consider in this discusion.
Deflection of the cue ball does not come alone. When you strike the cue ball with any amount of side spin, there is some deflection, but it is also followed by a certain amount of swerve in the opposite direction as the deflection.
Although the low deflection shafts lessen the amount of the initial deflection, they do nothing to reduce the amount of swerve. This still has to be compensated for by the player and this has to be considered in the learning curve.

JoeW
08-10-2008, 06:42 AM
I think there is truth in your statement and hence I equivocate.

None-the-less, in most endeavors in life the more one can reduce the inherent noise in the system the easier it is to use the system. Thus, if one has to contend "less" with deflection and swerve issues then one can spend more time in other areas that need to be addressed.

Bambu
08-10-2008, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rich,

I agree with you. If there were no "new" shafts out there the game would be played just as well by most players. </div></div>

I think the new shafts would be appreciated more by people who havent learned to adjust for squirt yet. I say that because I find the cueball going almost straight when using average amounts of spin with a Z-2. It seems that the squirt and swerve cancel each other out to a greater degree. To me, it really is a completely different way of shooting pool. I never thought I would see a cue or shaft with such a big difference in playability. The only hard part/down side I can think of, is re-adjusting to regular 13mm shafts.

av84fun
08-11-2008, 02:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...no one is being "propelled" to fame and glory by using new tech shafts. That's far too dramatic a proposition.</div></div>So, the ones who are being propelled to fame and glory do not use this new technology? If so, then something seems to be amiss.

I'M NOT UP TO SPEED WITH THE QUOTING THING SO I'LL JUST RESPOND IN CAPS...NOT SHOUTING.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT IS NOT THE CUE THAT IS THE PRIMARY FACTOR IN "PROPELLING PEOPLE TO FAME AND GLORY". THE CUE IS JUST ONE FACTOR IN A SERIES OF FACTORS. THE OLYMPIC SWIMMERS WEAR SLICK SUITS AND THE TIME DIFFERENCES ARE OFTEN IN 100THS OF A SECOND. SO IT MAKES SENSE TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF ALL AVAILABLE ADVANTAGES. THAT IS MY POINT.

As applicable or debatable as your analogies may be, I prefer a more direct and specific discussion; so I will bypass them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same thinking holds true for new tech shafts. When hitting centerball or nearly so, there isn't much of a L/D advantage but the further off center the hit is, the more of an advantage there is to L/D.</div></div>

So from this it seems this new technology offers a bigger advantage to those who apply spin to the cue ball, than to beginners who still have not learned how.

WELL, THE ADVANTAGE ACCRUES TO ALL WHO HIT SHOTS OFF CENTER. SINCE BEGINNERS SHOULD BE BEATEN IF THEY SHOOT OTHER THAN CENTERBALL DURING THEIR FIRST 500 RACKS, THE L/D SHAFT SHOULDN'T BENEFIT THEM AT ALL. (-:

BUT YES, ONCE ENGLISH IS USED THEN AN L/D SHAFT PROVIDES A FUNDAMENTAL ADVANTAGE JUST AS DOES A LARGER SWEET SPOT ON A GOLF CLUB...THAT ALL PROS USE! SORRY ABOUT REPEATING AN ANALOGY BUT IT IS PERFECTLY APT.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line, the argument is that a reduction of the magnitude of variables that must be compensated for results in a fundamental advantage. </div></div>


So let me see if I have this right. This new technology simplifies (reduces) the variables as compared to a higher deflection (squirt) shaft. And that simplification or reduction is the advantage. And by advantage that must mean people who learn to use this technology should be able to shoot better with it than if they shot with a higher deflection (squirt) shaft, that is, once they learn to compensate for the simplification / reduction / advantage. Is that pretty much it, or is there more to it than this, or do I have it wrong? </div></div>

ONE MODIFICATION. THE L/D SHAFT USER WILL REACH LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT FASTER. THEY MAY NEVER GET BETTER THAN X DUE TO ALL SORTS OF REASONS SUCH AS POOR OR NO INSTRUCTION...POOR OR NO PRACTICE ROUTINES ETC. BUT WHATEVER X IS, THE L/D PLAYER WILL GET THERE FASTER IMHO...ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

AS FAR AS EXPERIENCED PLAYERS ARE CONCERNED THERE IS NO PAT ANSWER. SOME TOP PLAYERS USE AS LITTLE ENGLISH AS POSSIBLE WHILE OTHERS SPIN THE BALL ROUTINELY AND THEREFORE, THE L/D SHAFT WILL BENEFIT SUCH PLAYERS MORE OR LESS DEPENDING ON THEIR STYLES.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF PROS HAVE CONVERTED TO PREDATOR/OB1 ETC. WITHOUT GETTING A DIME OF ENDORSEMENT MONEY OR CHUMP CHANGE AT BEST IN MOST CASES. CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO WRECK THEIR GAMES OVER.

AGAIN, NOT ALL OF THEM BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION BUT A LOT...AND THEREFORE, THERE ARE LOTS OF PLAYERS WHO KNOW MUCH MORE ABOUT THE GAME THAN YOU OR I WHO BELIEVE THAT THE BENEFIT I SUGGEST IS REAL.

REGARDS,
JIM

1Time
08-11-2008, 05:03 AM
There are at least a half dozen ways to reply that don't require typing in all caps. Two of the easiest are to click on "reply" and start typing and click on "quote" and start typing.

New2Pool
08-11-2008, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a phenomena known as the "hello / good-bye effect." Essentially it goes like this, "Hello doctor I am sick." Some time later, "Good-bye doctor, I feel so much better." Basically if you pay enough money then you have to justify to yourself why you did that. The "best" explanation is because the doctor helped me. So beware, in yourself or others who have spent a lot of money for some project and now must justify their expense to their own satisfaction.

Part two. Low deflection shafts can be and have been tested. They do indeed produce lower deflection than other shafts. This allows the player to use less english during play. These are not opinions, these are facts. If control of one's stroke is the objective then low deflection shafts will improve one's game if the player takes the time to learn how to use it.

Point three. There is a story about a physician in the 1900s who was shown the new chenical technology for testing diabetes. His reply was that he preferred what he learned in medical school -- taste the urnine if it is sweet the patient probably has diabetes. Some people just have to go with what they learned others adapt to the new technology for the benefits it brings.

All this from the proud owner of a Z2 -- now why did I buy and use that shaft on my $2,000 playing cue. Boy that takes a lot of justification.

Hmm I guess all that I can conclude is that new technology is worth evaluating for the potential benefits that some good hearted soul put into the effort to make the game better and make a buck.

decisions, decisions, decisions. </div></div>

Joe, I assume you meant to say that the L/D shafts allow the player to use MORE english and get less squirt than would be the case with a traditional shaft.

By using LESS english you reduce the advantage of L/D relative to traditional.

But I fully agree that, all other things being equal, L/D is fundamentally superior in that it reduces a critical variable that must be compensated for...essentially by guessing.

If the laws of physics could be suspended and a shaft built that would produce ZERO squirt, I doubt there would be a pro in the world who would not use it.

To use an opposite extreme for the sake of making the point, I don't think there is a pro in the world who instructs his custom cue maker to build a cue with the MAXIMUM possible squirt.

So, I think that regarding squirt, less is better with the single exception of those who play JAM UP with standard shafts and who correctly have concluded that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I clearly remember the EXACT SAME arguments when "metal woods" were first introduced. Now, there are no wood woods left and for the simple, undeniable reason that they are technologically superior. DITTO with tennis rackets when the purists chided those playing with "plastic" rackets!

Aviation is the same. Metal is FAR from the optimal material to build aircraft out of and Composite Fiber is making rapid inroads in replacing metal. In 20 years...30 tops...there won't be much metal left in commercial/military aircraft.

Just as true re: the above, wood is FAR from the optimal material from which to build pool cues and except for collector value and the ARTISTRY of wooden cues (as opposed to playability) pool cues will be largely synthetic in 20 years.

Predator is already leading the charge. The materials are already in existence. All that remains is to conform them in an optimal fashion and for the prices to come down.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

I was a young amateur tennis player back in the early 1980's when oversized tennis rackets first started becoming popular. The better amateurs and pros laughed at the old guys (over 25) using the big rackets and we all swore we would never use an old man's racket. Then the old guys started making shots we could not make and winning tournaments. The top amateurs started switching but it was still a while before the pro's switched though. In the early stages of development the advantage of the oversized rackets was with poorly hit balls while the regular rackets hit a well struck ball better. So amateurs got a bigger boost in performance. Eventually the technology got to the point where the synthetic rackets hit better for all shots and all the pro's started switching over.

1Time
08-11-2008, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: New2Pool</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eventually the technology got to the point where the synthetic rackets hit better for all shots and all the pro's started switching over. </div></div>
So are the pool pros switching over to the new shaft technology? And are those who have switched winning or placing higher than those who have not switched? Wouldn't that be a good indicator of whether this new shaft technology is superior?

My primary attempt at learning about this new shaft technology and how it plays out with the pros has been in this thread, which is to say I'm really not up to speed on this.

Soflasnapper
08-17-2008, 02:57 PM
A couple of years ago, when the Predator shaft had less competition from these newer similar designs, I saw information that half or a little more of pro pool players were using the Predator. That is a fairly strong recommendation.

I would presume a similar number of pros would be found using low deflection style shafts, but choosing between several such brands available at this later time.

mike60
08-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Radical new shaft designs and Pro usage are determined by financial agreements more than performance on the pool table. Mosconi and the rest ran hundreds of balls
with plain hardwood shafts. Gloves and exotic new toys are no better than the player buying them. Practice.

miguel

Soflasnapper
08-21-2008, 11:08 AM
I'm not sure that's really true.

Yes, when Earl and Allison use Cuetec cues, there is a financial deal involved (proven when Earl's contract was ended, and he bad-mouthed the stick). But WHO ELSE does/did Cuetec pay? Who is Owens/B? (the OB-1 manufacturer) paying, other than John Schmidt? And of the 40 some odd pro players playing with Predator shafts in those past years, surely Predator was not paying more than a couple to use the stick.

Yes, Jimmy Connors played well with his Wilson T-2000 aluminum racket, back in the '70s. Borg played great with his wood racket. But are there now any top-20 tennis pros playing who haven't adopted the newer racket technologies? Any pool pros jumping with their playing stick, instead of using the latest jump cue technology (whether paid to endorse them or not)?

Sid_Vicious
08-21-2008, 12:16 PM
"Any pool pros jumping with their playing stick, instead of using the latest jump cue technology (whether paid to endorse them or not)?"

Earl...sid

Sid_Vicious
08-21-2008, 12:22 PM
Bignick...Of all the new designs, the OB1 has proven to be the "1" Having said that, I find that when I go back to "old wood", and even house cues, they too impress me.

The OB1 is my choice, but you might just be better off getting a cue with good, old shaft wood and never looking back...sid

JJFSTAR
08-21-2008, 12:45 PM
Ah yes history repeats itself there go the two camps warring again the technology advocates vs. the technology scoffers. I wonder what the score is in human history. I think I will start counting and I will give a rough post next week. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Someone drilled a hole in the top of their shaft somewhere and it worked like a charm and behold l/d was born and its here to stay. It has helped millions of people play better pool and I am one of them. The 1st 314’s were crude at least to me. I tried one and it had no life to it. It wasn’t until more than a dozen years later that I found one that I thought was wonderful McDermott’s “I” series.

To all the guys and girls who shoot with shafts that deflect a lot; more power to you, to the champions who shoot with them you are more talented than I am, to those who say “I am sure glad that new tech is helping you out but my game has already incorporated deflection into it therefore I think that new tech will probably hurt my game” I say your probably right.

I want to give a hearty hat off to the champions of yesteryear who were able to run several hundred balls with what was by today’s equipment standards “the dark ages” not limiting that to sticks but all the equipment. There is no questioning of the raw skill, talent, concentration and self sacrifice that that must have taken to accomplish.

But I have just one thing to say to those who say “that new tech stuff is all bologna”.
“You make snap judgments about whatever it is in question based solely on your own PAST personal experience and not after extensive investigation” and IMHO the former is a far less intelligent approach to any subject than the latter.

Rich R.
08-21-2008, 07:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Any pool pros jumping with their playing stick, instead of using the latest jump cue technology (whether paid to endorse them or not)?"

Earl...sid </div></div>
Sid, Earl isn't as pure as he would like you to believe. In matches I have seen him play, he doesn't jump with his playing cue. He jumps with his break cue. It is still a full size cue, but I would have to guess it has a much harder tip than his playing cue.

av84fun
08-21-2008, 11:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are at least a half dozen ways to reply that don't require typing in all caps. Two of the easiest are to click on "reply" and start typing and click on "quote" and start typing. </div></div>

BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUR?

IN ANY EVENT STUDIES CONFIRM THAT JUST AS L/D SHAFTS HAVE ADVANTAGES OVER TRADITIONAL SHAFTS, LARGER TYPE FACES...WITHIN REASON, ARE EASIER TO READ.

THE ONLY OBJECTION TO LARGER TYPE IS A RATHER ARCHAIC TRADITION IN THE ON-LINE COMMUNITY THAT ALL CAPS IS EQUIVALENT TO SHOUTING.

OF COURSE, IT IS NOT SHOUTING SINCE THIS IS A MUTE MEDIUM AND IN ANY EVENT, THE TRADITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN SILLY.

LOL.....oooops....I mean lol or if you would prefer...<span style='font-size: 8pt'>lol</span>

av84fun
08-21-2008, 11:33 PM
Mike60, Mosconi was, of course, primarily a 14.1 player which is largely a "half court" game rarely requiring the distances or power that is often the case in 9 Ball. Willie despised 9 Ball...quite probably for reasons including the above.

As for endorsements leading to player usage, A) the endorsement money available in pool today for most players who receive any is chump change and B) no player worth his/her salt is going to endanger his/her career by competing with an inferior cue.

As for gloves, they are hardly "exotic new toys." In fact for those who play in humid conditions or whose hands tend to sweat, they are a godsend.

Gloves do not interfere with the play but powder absolutely does. According to Jack Koehler in Science of Pocket Billiards, powder can cause up to a 3 degree variation in collision-induced throw.

From far enough away, a 3 degree difference could lead to missing Los Angles!!!! (-:

Powder is an archaic solution to maintaining a smoothly gliding pool stroke and should be banned from play.

Regards,
Jim

Deeman3
08-22-2008, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah yes history repeats itself there go the two camps warring again the technology advocates vs. the technology scoffers. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I would like to be one of the first to "Scoff" or in my case, "Re-scoff" at the idea that the latest shaft technology does much more than sell new product. I know it's a minority view and as soon as I release my new Spatial Radial non-miscue Wham Shaft, I'll change my view, at least publically. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

jht1953
08-22-2008, 08:06 AM
Just my 2 cents. I have a McDermott I2, I love it. There was a short learning curve but now I have confidence when applying english on longer shots. The biggest difference I see is when shooting a corner to corner shot when you want to cheat the pocket and get back up table, the cue ball responds just right, I have not tried any other low deflection shafts, but I imagine there all pretty much the same.

av84fun
08-22-2008, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah yes history repeats itself there go the two camps warring again the technology advocates vs. the technology scoffers. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I would like to be one of the first to "Scoff" or in my case, "Re-scoff" at the idea that the latest shaft technology does much more than sell new product. I know it's a minority view and as soon as I release my new Spatial Radial non-miscue Wham Shaft, I'll change my view, at least publically. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

Yes...and those metal "woods" in golf and those silly "plastic" tennis racquets are just FADS!!

BAH...HUMBUG!!!

(-:

Jim

Fenwick
08-22-2008, 11:50 AM
A new guys take on a L.D. shafts. Out of the game for over 20 years I decided to come back. I'm 58. Out of necessity I had to get a new shaft for a very old cue. So I had one made and asked for a L.D. shaft. What I got was a fatter shaft, 13 mm + and a shorter ferrule. It sucked and so did the old cue!
Next I decided to get a new cue. Nothing fancy but light; 17.75 oz. It was nice and I grew up playing with light cues and small shafts. 10.75 or maybe 11.50 mm and the 12.50 and 13 mm shaft I ordered felt huge and made the cue feel out of balance in my hands. So I decided to try a real L.D. shaft and see what it would do to my new cue. I couldn't hit the back of the pocket with my butt with the L.D. shaft at first. So I took lessons and practiced for months.
What I had to do was tear my whole aiming system down and start from scratch. That meant no side English for a month. The L.D. shaft either threw everything off or made every flaw in my stroke or aim bigger. It hit too exact or straight if that's possible but more likely; "the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement."
While I agree, " If there were no "new" shafts out there the game would be played just as well by most players." I also think why not be open to new technology? Try bowling with a AMF 3 dot ball today or a wooden tennis racket.
The residing Senior players where I play pocket balls with the type of shaft they grew up with. Nothing from the 1960's though! They make runs of 20, 40, 60 and 90 balls routinely. And good for then. They don't need or want to relearn anything if they can run rack after rack. I can't but it has little or nothing to do with having a high or low deflection shaft. I had and have bad fundamentals. Bad grip and a bad stroke. I'm getting better with help.
So could I have gotten better without a L.D. shaft; I don't know for certain but it did make my new cue feel more balanced. Mostly it was the lessons and the practice?
If your game is fine keep doing what you're doing with what you have no need to change. If your game is off a L.D. shaft is not the answer or the cure. IMHO without having the conviction to work hard to improve you will stagnate as in, (to stop developing, growing, progressing, or advancing:). It hasn't been the magic bean for me nor has it been the poison pill.
Lessons and good practice could be time and money better spent.

The End

DeadCrab
08-22-2008, 12:30 PM
If you know the pivot point of your standard (not LD) cue, and confine your side spin to backhand english with the bridge at the pivot point, would you not be better off than you would be if you were using a low deflection cue?

BTW, those big tennis rackets and drivers just engineer skill out of the game.

av84fun
08-22-2008, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fenwick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A new guys take on a L.D. shafts. Out of the game for over 20 years I decided to come back. I'm 58. Out of necessity I had to get a new shaft for a very old cue. So I had one made and asked for a L.D. shaft. What I got was a fatter shaft, 13 mm + and a shorter ferrule. It sucked and so did the old cue!
Next I decided to get a new cue. Nothing fancy but light; 17.75 oz. It was nice and I grew up playing with light cues and small shafts. 10.75 or maybe 11.50 mm and the 12.50 and 13 mm shaft I ordered felt huge and made the cue feel out of balance in my hands. So I decided to try a real L.D. shaft and see what it would do to my new cue. I couldn't hit the back of the pocket with my butt with the L.D. shaft at first. So I took lessons and practiced for months.
What I had to do was tear my whole aiming system down and start from scratch. That meant no side English for a month. The L.D. shaft either threw everything off or made every flaw in my stroke or aim bigger. It hit too exact or straight if that's possible but more likely; <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement." </span> While I agree, " If there were no "new" shafts out there the game would be played just as well by most players." I also think why not be open to new technology? Try bowling with a AMF 3 dot ball today or a wooden tennis racket.
The residing Senior players where I play pocket balls with the type of shaft they grew up with. Nothing from the 1960's though! They make runs of 20, 40, 60 and 90 balls routinely. And good for then. They don't need or want to relearn anything if they can run rack after rack. I can't but it has little or nothing to do with having a high or low deflection shaft. I had and have bad fundamentals. Bad grip and a bad stroke. I'm getting better with help.
So could I have gotten better without a L.D. shaft; I don't know for certain but it did make my new cue feel more balanced. Mostly it was the lessons and the practice?
If your game is fine keep doing what you're doing with what you have no need to change. If your game is off a L.D. shaft is not the answer or the cure. IMHO without having the conviction to work hard to improve you will stagnate as in, (to stop developing, growing, progressing, or advancing:). It hasn't been the magic bean for me nor has it been the poison pill.
Lessons and good practice could be time and money better spent.

The End </div></div>

Interesting post. Thanks. Your comment about the Z2 shaft was in quotes. Who are you quoting?

Regardless, IMHO, tip placement is super-critical with any shaft and TIP...which induce more or less spin and therefore, require aim modifications whenever off center hits are used.

Also IMHO, many who test various cues fail to take the tip into proper consideration and rather, attribute their findings...good or bad...to the cue.

Often, when I hear a player say "X" cue "hits great." I ask what tip is on it and I get one of the looks that says "What difference does that make."

Well, it makes a LOT of difference both in the feel of the hit and the behavior of the CB and therefore, the OB.

At the end of the day, L/D shaft...at least if you believe the Predator data...which I do... reduces squirt VS. THE AVERAGE OR TYPICAL traditional shaft.

I put that comment in caps since traditional shafts have widely varying deflection characteristics and it may well be true that some traditional shafts have very similar deflection characteristics as the L/D shafts.

Bottom line, L/D shafts are highly likely to diminish a variable that must be allowed for and a reduction of such variables is a fundamentally sound thing to do.

I will believe that until I see a letters from several top pros asking their custom cuemakers to be sure to MAXIMIZE the deflection of their custom cues.

Regards,
Jim

PS: One of the reasons I tend to believe the Predator data is the fact that they assert on their own website that the dime radius that ALL their shafts ship with is responsible for fully 15% of the deflection reduction that they advertise!

Hey, when a company admits that THAT much of their deflection reduction has nothing whatsoever to do with their cue's technology, but rather to the shape of the tip...that suggests a high degree of honesty IMHO.

Deeman3
08-22-2008, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah yes history repeats itself there go the two camps warring again the technology advocates vs. the technology scoffers. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I would like to be one of the first to "Scoff" or in my case, "Re-scoff" at the idea that the latest shaft technology does much more than sell new product. I know it's a minority view and as soon as I release my new Spatial Radial non-miscue Wham Shaft, I'll change my view, at least publically. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

Yes...and those metal "woods" in golf and those silly "plastic" tennis racquets are just FADS!!

BAH...HUMBUG!!!

(-:

Jim </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">You have point. Of course, a new age golf club has improved the play of the top player, witness the longer courses falling to lower scores. In pool, a demonstrated increase in performance, more draw, higher runs even more accurate shots have not been demonstrated.

Probably the number 50 golf pro could, with new clubs, whip a 1940's player soundly on a golf course. I don't think number 50 today, with a new shaft, even a new tip, could even beat any 1940-90. top player because of equipment. Harold Worst would not even notice the new shaft. I beleive the jump cue is about the only cue advance of the past 40 years that makes any difference and mostly because it didn't exist back then.</span>

wolfdancer
08-22-2008, 01:05 PM
The old saying was that "only God and Ben Hogan could hit a 1-iron"
Now there's no reason to even carry a 1-iron...and my latest buy, square head 3, 5 woods are so easy to hit, I can hit them.
I think i mentioned here before about the pros that got together and played a round using clubs from the 50's era. They couldn't believe the loss in distance....and forgotten in this hi-tech era, is the balls themselves.....way better then the old stand by's
Dunlop Gold Cups.
A friend of mine back then worked at the Dunlop factory...and after running off XXX number of say, Palmer golf balls, they chnged the stamps, and the next batch became Ben Hogan's
(not sure if the Palmer's flew farther, although some folks swore that they did).
I play the Nike Juice which promises ginormous, hugantic distance
http://thesandtrap.com/imgs/balls/nike_juice_teaser_2.jpg

Deeman3
08-22-2008, 01:25 PM
Wolfdancer,

Exactly my point. If I had to trade my 15 year old Pings for 1950's clubs it would kill even a hacker like me. If my TA Davis wooden rackets, I still have two) were to be hit by a modern player today, they would laugh. However, my 1968 Balabuska plays just about as well as my Schons and if I had to use one of those older cues, I would hardly notice. I bet even some of these techno kids could play pretty sporty with it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Fenwick
08-22-2008, 01:32 PM
Your comment about the Z2 shaft was in quotes. Who are you quoting?
bignick31985. He wrote, "Anitokids review of the OB1 is leaning me towards that one so far. But its been tough to find reviews. Although on AZBilliards the feelings there go both ways. Some say the OB1 is a 'soft' hit, and then the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement."
And several way better then me players have tried my Z2 and feel the same way. At the very least it changed their aim and they missed shots by a lot. Not that it means a whole lot but I'm talking 9 ft tables.

1Time
08-22-2008, 01:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes...and those metal "woods" in golf and those silly "plastic" tennis racquets are just FADS!!

BAH...HUMBUG!!!

(-:

Jim </div></div>So you're suggesting this newer shaft technology is the wave of the future, just like those technological advances were for golf and tennis?

1Time
08-22-2008, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, those big tennis rackets and drivers just engineer skill out of the game. </div></div>False.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fenwick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I had to do was tear my whole aiming system down and start from scratch.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fenwick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At the very least it changed their aim and they missed shots by a lot.</div></div>I had a black dot Meucci shaft before and there was no way I was going to learn a new aiming system for it, so I sold it. It usually doesn't take me long to adapt to different cues or shafts and determine if one or another is better for me or not. However, lower deflection (squirt) shafts are not for me. I can run a rack with just about any cue from flexible to moderately stiff, but not with a low deflection shaft. It messes way too much with my aiming system. The cue ball doesn't go where I want on its way to the object ball. And I don't care to learn a new aiming system, when the one I use works extremely well with "regular" cues / shafts.

av84fun
08-22-2008, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If you know the pivot point of your standard (not LD) cue, and confine your side spin to backhand english with the bridge at the pivot point, would you not be better off than you would be if you were using a low deflection cue?

BTW, those big tennis rackets and drivers just engineer skill out of the game. </div></div>

I don't know the answer to your question. The use of BHE/FHE is far from a universally accepted technique.

BHE is used to counteract squirt. Squirt, obviously, must be compensated for one way or the other. Whether that compensation takes place with aim, BHE or L/D seems open to personal choice as far as I am concerned.

As for "engineering the skill out of the game" First, that simply isn't correct (see below) but what are you suggesting? That golf clubs return to hickory shafts? (-:

But new technology doesn't engineer skill out of the game. If that were true, then the winner of a golf or tennis match would be essentially a toss up.

Does technology CHANGE games? Yes, of course...and for the most part, the change is in the direction of what fans desire.

Why was the "lively baseball" introduced? To promote more home runs. Why? Fans LIKE home runs.

Tennis racquests foster higher ball speeds and shots with greater spin. Fans like that.

Ditto with golf technology which promotes longer shot distances.

Regards,
Jim

Deeman3
08-22-2008, 03:59 PM
It just does not have seemed to have worked on anywhere near the same level in pool.

av84fun
08-22-2008, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes...and those metal "woods" in golf and those silly "plastic" tennis racquets are just FADS!!

BAH...HUMBUG!!!

(-:

Jim </div></div>So you're suggesting this newer shaft technology is the wave of the future, just like those technological advances were for golf and tennis? </div></div>

Sure. It already is. If you were to create a graph showing the trend of pro usage of "new technology shafts" (anything other than a shaft constructed from a single piece of wood) in which direction would the line on the graph be trending?

There is a REAL possibility that within the next 20 years, single piece wood shafts will decline <u>radically</u> in usage.

Carbon fiber and other synthetic technologies (even nanotubes)are almost certain to be adapted to pool cues such that they would be superior in almost every way to wood...and would be much cheaper to mass produce.

Purists will, of course, resist that evolution tooth and nail but such was the case in golf and tennis as you will recall.

But the TRUTH is that cues that can perform equally well if not better than wooden ones can be produced so that they would be virtually IDENTICAL even in mass production.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would order a true "custom" cue that they have never had in their hands...at least not without a full, no questions asked money back guarantee that I assume is not available from custom cuemakers (except for the "bragging rights" and the artistry that they can acquire).

Regards,
Jim

JoeW
08-22-2008, 05:50 PM
After all the discussion was done it seemed to me that it was worth evaluating the new shafts. I compared the Z shaft to the shafts that came with my $2k custom made cue (among others). I use LePro tips and a dime radius on all of my cues (including the Z). I have for many years.

Place an OB one ball off the foot rail on a diamond.
Place the CB on the first diamond from the head rail.
Shoot center ball, 40% off the vertical axis (1 1/2 tip of english) to hit the OB dead center.

Shoot 30 shots with your favortie shaft and 30 shots with the LD shaft, alternating every five attempts. Estimate the amount that you miss dead center by the amount the OB deviates when it strikes the rail.

In my test the LD shaft had 30 - 40% less error. It is also worth mentioning that I had been playing with the shaft that came with my expensive cue for more than five years. The Z shaft had less than one week of use. My findings were in line with the results reported by others.

In other studies of the Z shaft, based on other comments on the net, I also studied the effect of rotating the Z shaft using the same method. In my study I found that the least deflection is obtained when the Letter Z is facing the sky (or rotated 180 degrees). There was 10 - 15% less deflection when the Z is in the "correct" position.

I did not need to conduct a statistical test of these results as the magnitude of the differences based on the standaed deviation of the shots was overwhelmingly consistent. I can conclude that the Z shaft is a substantial improvement when it comes to reducing the amount of deflection. The Z is my only playing shaft and I do not use it to break or jump.

Run your own test, your milage may vary.

My "custom cue" is second hand. I used it for several hours before buying it. I agree, I would not buy a custom cue unless I tried it first.

In terms of experimenter bias, if anything, I was biased towards my original expensive cue. It is a thing of beauty and I did not want to mess with the cue maker's work. I was hoping that there would be little to no difference between my custom shafts and the Z. If tere was only a little difference I already had a buyer for the Z shaft.

DeadCrab
08-22-2008, 05:59 PM
As counter-examples I would cite major league baseball's resistance to allowing aluminum bats, and the banning of the Chaparral Cars from racing 30 years ago.

pooltchr
08-22-2008, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfdancer,

Exactly my point. If I had to trade my 15 year old Pings for 1950's clubs it would kill even a hacker like me. If my TA Davis wooden rackets, I still have two) were to be hit by a modern player today, they would laugh. However, my 1968 Balabuska plays just about as well as my Schons and if I had to use one of those older cues, I would hardly notice. I bet even some of these techno kids could play pretty sporty with it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Dee,
Do you think that it's because the advances made in golf clubs and tennis rackets are designed to increase the speed or distance of a shot with the same energy? That isn't something that difficult to engineer. The goal for pool cues isn't to get more speed or distance. Your 68 B will allow you to generate just about the same power as any cue. So we are talking about very minor variations in performance of pool cues. And since the goal is more accuracy, testing is somewhat subjective. You might be more accurate with your Balabuska, and I might be more accurate with a Earl Strickland model Cuetec. Is it the arrow, or the indian?
Steve

1Time
08-22-2008, 08:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my test the LD shaft had 30 - 40% less error. </div></div>The only test that should matter is the one that compares which shaft/cue shoots better for you for your game.

av84fun
08-22-2008, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It just does not have seemed to have worked on anywhere near the same level in pool. </div></div>

If by "it" you mean cue technology, I really don't know how you can say that without making a list of the top 50 male and female players and tell me from your personal knowledge, what shafts they use.

Predator, OB1, Cuetec etc. name quite a few champion players who use their shafts....including:
Williams
Orcollo
Hofstatter
Ouschan
Souquet
Wu
Chamat
Schmidt
Allision Fisher

just to name a few. The argument that players will play with any cue/shaft made by a company that will pay them is both factually unsupportable and entirely illogical...since no player in his right mind would compromise their careers for the chump change that some L/D shaft makers pay them...and most are not paid AT ALL (with the exception of getting a free cue/shaft.

So...AT WORST...the argument is that L/D shafts are no better or worse than traditional shafts.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-22-2008, 09:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfdancer,

Exactly my point. If I had to trade my 15 year old Pings for 1950's clubs it would kill even a hacker like me. If my TA Davis wooden rackets, I still have two) were to be hit by a modern player today, they would laugh. However, my 1968 Balabuska plays just about as well as my Schons and if I had to use one of those older cues, I would hardly notice. I bet even some of these techno kids could play pretty sporty with it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

What are the deflection characteristics of your Shons?

What type of measurment device did you use to calculate the above?

My point is that some fine custom cues MAY...repeat MAY have very similar L/D characteristics as the newer tech cues have based on their maker's advanced skills and wood selection.

And whether you personally would notice any difference is a slippery slope to debate on. What I mean is that any given player...on longer shots where reduced deflection has the greatest advantage...might miss by a half ball with shaft A and a quarter ball with shaft B ...but still miss, so the outcome of the rack would be the same.

I genuinely don't understand the debate. The science is there. Deflection is reduced. Deflection requires an adjustment to aim. Aim MUST be adjusted when shafts of differing deflection charactics are used.

What...fundamentally...is wrong with shafts that deflect less than other shafts?

Are you aware of any quality cuemakers who attempt to maximize deflection? They could if they wanted to.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-22-2008, 09:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fenwick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your comment about the Z2 shaft was in quotes. Who are you quoting?
bignick31985. He wrote, "Anitokids review of the OB1 is leaning me towards that one so far. But its been tough to find reviews. Although on AZBilliards the feelings there go both ways. Some say the OB1 is a 'soft' hit, and then the Z2 is incredibly unforgiving with tip placement."
And several way better then me players have tried my Z2 and feel the same way. At the very least it changed their aim and they missed shots by a lot. Not that it means a whole lot but I'm talking 9 ft tables. </div></div>

Sure...those who adopt L/D shafts must change their aim to some extent...especially on longer shots in 9/10 Ball played on 9 ft. tables.

But the whole point is that smaller adjustments are required per unit of distance of CB travel with L/D shafts. On shorter shots, the aim difference required may be small or irrelevant.

But longer shots tend to be more difficult and that is where the L/D advantage would become of greater value.

As for the "hit" posts on any forum are hardly conclusive and more likely do more harm than good. What does "soft" mean when used by any given poster.

Plus the TIP is highly influential in how hard or soft a hit feels.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-22-2008, 10:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As counter-examples I would cite major league baseball's resistance to allowing aluminum bats, and the banning of the Chaparral Cars from racing 30 years ago.

</div></div>

Aluminum bats have a larger "sweet spot" and are lighter relative to their strength so that greater "bat speed" will be generated given the same force applied.

Therefore, aluminum bats would A) result in more long hits/home runs B) faster and therefore more difficult to field ground balls and C) more liklihood of injury to the pitchers who would have that much less time to avoid being hit by a batted ball.

So, from the batter's point of view, aluminum is the superior implement but not so for the "defense" so it is not surprising that baseball rule makers have resisted them.

I don't know much about race cars.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-22-2008, 10:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfdancer,

Exactly my point. If I had to trade my 15 year old Pings for 1950's clubs it would kill even a hacker like me. If my TA Davis wooden rackets, I still have two) were to be hit by a modern player today, they would laugh. However, my 1968 Balabuska plays just about as well as my Schons and if I had to use one of those older cues, I would hardly notice. I bet even some of these techno kids could play pretty sporty with it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Dee,
Do you think that it's because the advances made in golf clubs and tennis rackets are designed to increase the speed or distance of a shot with the same energy? That isn't something that difficult to engineer. The goal for pool cues isn't to get more speed or distance. Your 68 B will allow you to generate just about the same power as any cue. So we are talking about very minor variations in performance of pool cues. And since the goal is more accuracy, testing is somewhat subjective. You might be more accurate with your Balabuska, and I might be more accurate with a Earl Strickland model Cuetec. Is it the arrow, or the indian?Steve </div></div>

Ah...the age-old debate! (-:

Truth is that no indian killed any game (or soldiers) with the bow only and no arrow kills much game without the indian.

But I can suggest with little fear of contradiction that any indian worth his collection of scalps would choose an arrow that was less resistant to crosswinds ("deflection") than some other arrow.

Agreed?

(-:

Jim

1Time
08-22-2008, 11:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are at least a half dozen ways to reply that don't require typing in all caps. Two of the easiest are to click on "reply" and start typing and click on "quote" and start typing. </div></div>BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUR?</div></div>I pointed this out for your benefit and that of the readers, so your replies would be read by more people. Typing in caps online is commonly known as shouting; it's rude and inconsiderate when not done sparingly. Many readers will skip over such posts. I will assume the other ways of posting replies are not truly of interest to you since you're still typing in caps.

1Time
08-23-2008, 12:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line, L/D shafts are highly likely to diminish a variable that must be allowed for and a reduction of such variables is a fundamentally sound thing to do.</div></div>Fundamentally sound? The assumption here is the more this variable is reduced by the cue stick, the better. If L/D shafts/cues were selling today for $5 each, and I shot better with a $200 regular shaft/cue, I would buy the $200 regular shaft/cue. Conversely, if shot better with a $200 L/D shaft/cue, I would buy one. Not everyone shoots better with a L/D shaft/cue. Thus, this assumption is wrong. The fundamentally sound thing to do is to shoot with the type of shaft/cue that shoots better for you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will believe that until I see a letters from several top pros asking their custom cuemakers to be sure to MAXIMIZE the deflection of their custom cues. </div></div>This is what I call on/off thinking. There's no dimmer switch involved; the light is either on full blast or shut off. Either deflection has to be minimized or maximized. There just can't possibly be any benefit in using something in between. And this is a complete fairy tale.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PS: One of the reasons I tend to believe the Predator data is the fact that they assert on their own website that the dime radius that ALL their shafts ship with is responsible for fully 15% of the deflection reduction that they advertise! </div></div>And for which brands, models, and hardnesses would those tips be? Or, doesn't the tip matter?

av84fun
08-23-2008, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are at least a half dozen ways to reply that don't require typing in all caps. Two of the easiest are to click on "reply" and start typing and click on "quote" and start typing. </div></div>BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUR?</div></div>I pointed this out for your benefit and that of the readers, so your replies would be read by more people. Typing in caps online is commonly known as shouting; it's rude and inconsiderate when not done sparingly. Many readers will skip over such posts. I will assume the other ways of posting replies are not truly of interest to you since you're still typing in caps. </div></div>

Well, first, your limited "instructions" were incorrect for the purpose of handling multiple quotes in posts.

Secondly, the presumption that typing in CAPS is "shouting" or "rude" is, as I pointed out earlier, a quaint and somewhat dated internet custom AT BEST...and silly at worst.

An optomitrist will confirm that within reason, larger letters are more readable and more importantly, I am really quite sure that no one can hear the words I type.

In addition, the following letters are not CAPS...

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>hello 1time</span>

but even though they are lower case, I assume you might consider that shouting as well. So, let me ask you...is ANY font size larger than the default shouting in your view?

And if the default font was 17 pt. as above, then would this sentence be considered whispering?

Most importantly...lighten up! Within reason, font sizes and caps or lower case don't mean beans except to those who are truly victimized by quaint customs.

(-:

1Time
08-23-2008, 12:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are at least a half dozen ways to reply that don't require typing in all caps. Two of the easiest are to click on "reply" and start typing and click on "quote" and start typing. </div></div>BUT WHAT ARE THE OTHER FOUR?</div></div>I pointed this out for your benefit and that of the readers, so your replies would be read by more people. Typing in caps online is commonly known as shouting; it's rude and inconsiderate when not done sparingly. Many readers will skip over such posts. I will assume the other ways of posting replies are not truly of interest to you since you're still typing in caps. </div></div>

Well, first, your limited "instructions" were incorrect for the purpose of handling multiple quotes in posts.

Secondly, the presumption that typing in CAPS is "shouting" or "rude" is, as I pointed out earlier, a quaint and somewhat dated internet custom AT BEST...and silly at worst.

An optomitrist will confirm that within reason, larger letters are more readable and more importantly, I am really quite sure that no one can hear the words I type.

In addition, the following letters are not CAPS...

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>hello 1time</span>

but even though they are lower case, I assume you might consider that shouting as well. So, let me ask you...is ANY font size larger than the default shouting in your view?

And if the default font was 17 pt. as above, then would this sentence be considered whispering?

Most importantly...lighten up! Within reason, font sizes and caps or lower case don't mean beans except to those who are truly victimized by quaint customs.

(-: </div></div>See, I just clicked on "Quote" and started typing. Works every time, even without caps.

av84fun
08-23-2008, 01:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line, L/D shafts are highly likely to diminish a variable that must be allowed for and a reduction of such variables is a fundamentally sound thing to do.</div></div>



If L/D shafts/cues were selling today for $5 each, and I shot better with a $200 regular shaft/cue, I would buy the $200 regular shaft/cue. Conversely, if shot better with a $200 L/D shaft/cue, I would buy one. Not everyone shoots better with a L/D shaft/cue. Thus, this assumption is wrong. The fundamentally sound thing to do is to shoot with the type of shaft/cue that shoots better for you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will believe that until I see a letters from several top pros asking their custom cuemakers to be sure to MAXIMIZE the deflection of their custom cues. </div></div>This is what I call on/off thinking. There's no dimmer switch involved; the light is either on full blast or shut off. Either deflection has to be minimized or maximized. There just can't possibly be any benefit in using something in between. And this is a complete fairy tale.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PS: One of the reasons I tend to believe the Predator data is the fact that they assert on their own website that the dime radius that ALL their shafts ship with is responsible for fully 15% of the deflection reduction that they advertise! </div></div>And for which brands, models, and hardnesses would those tips be? Or, doesn't the tip matter? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fundamentally sound? The assumption here is the more this variable is reduced by the cue stick, the better.</div></div>

Of course that is the assumption and it is irrefutably correct. Assuming for sake of argument that a cue could me manufactured that would reduce deflection to zero (just for sake of argument...don't get all Newtonian with me) then if available at a decent price every new player on planet earth would be well advised to buy one and a huge percentage of top pros would FLOCK to such a cue. I submit in evidence that they have adopted L/D shafts in large numbers and if L/D could become "N/D" they would flock in even larger numbers.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If L/D shafts/cues were selling today for $5 each, and I shot better with a $200 regular shaft/cue, I would buy the $200 regular shaft/cue. Conversely, if shot better with a $200 L/D shaft/cue, I would buy one. Not everyone shoots better with a L/D shaft/cue. Thus, this assumption is wrong.</div></div>

I heartily disagree. Just because certain people don't do "A" does not mean that "A" is not fundamentally sound.

Do you argue that driving at or near the posted speed limits (or some slower speed that is occasioned by weather or traffic) is not fundamentaly sound? The cops and judges think it's fundamentally sound and yet at least 70% of the people on the highways I've driven on for the past 48 years speed routinely.

Continuing with the driving analogy, do you think that driving while intoxicated is a fundamentally sound thing to do? The families of about 30,000 dead people every year would disagree.

Back to pool, the "built in" reduction of a variable that must otherwise be accounted for by varing human input IS fundamentally sound whether you prefer to avail yourself of that benefit or not.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is what I call on/off thinking. There's no dimmer switch involved; the light is either on full blast or shut off. Either deflection has to be minimized or maximized. There just can't possibly be any benefit in using something in between. And this is a complete fairy tale. </div></div>

You completely miss the point. No L/D shaft in the world reduces deflection to zero but rather REDUCE it to some extent. I never suggested anything to the contrary and so your suggestion that my point is either on or off is the fairly tale.

"Maximum" and "minimum" are relative terms, not absolute terms. There is a minimum and maximum speed that a bowling ball can fall in still air..but those speeds are neither zero nor the speed of light.

So the L/D shaft IS analagous to a dimmer switch, not an on/off switch.

Your point is well taken that players should play with that certain cue that they play best with but that statement, to continue with your lighting analogy, is little more than illuminating the obvious.

The germane question is WHICH cue would a given player be more likely to play best with.

I know players who can play jam up with a warped shaft. But that does not mean that a straight shaft is not "fundamentally sound"...and the straighter the better.

Why? Because a warped shaft requires varying degrees of physical input to counteract. Doing so is clearly possible but being possible does not make a warped shaft fundamentally sound.

That is an entirely apt analogy to the L/D shaft. Such shafts certainly reduce the need for varying human input and that feature is just as fundamentally sound as is a straight vs. a warped shaft.

I have used the term "varying human input" repeatedly above and it is correct to do so.

If a shaft is warped, than greater compensation would be required given a long back stroke that causes the entire range of bend to pass through the bridge. Conversely, a very short backstroke might only involve a portion of the bend...or none at all.

The same is true for any given shaft that deflect more than a given L/D shaft.

As you know, the degree of aim compensation to correct for squirt varies with the distance between CB and OB.

Therefore, the greater the degree of squirt the wider the range of required compensation and therefore, the greater the liklihood of error.

You have described a portion of my thesis as a fairly tale. With equal respect, I suggest that portions of your logic are some combination of illogical and "traditional" for the sake of being traditional.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
08-23-2008, 01:44 AM
But you also suggested to click "reply" and start typing. I just did that. Do you see any of your comments quoted?

But I am truly sorry that my posting methodology does not live up to your standards. I will struggle to find a way to live with that.

(-:

1Time
08-23-2008, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you also suggested to click "reply" and start typing. I just did that. Do you see any of your comments quoted?

But I am truly sorry that my posting methodology does not live up to your standards. I will struggle to find a way to live with that.

(-: </div></div>I wasn't aware of having set this standard, but it really warms my heart to see you've learned to reply like the rest of us, without caps.

pooltchr
08-23-2008, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I know players who can play jam up with a warped shaft. But that does not mean that a straight shaft is not "fundamentally sound"...and the straighter the better.

Why? Because a warped shaft requires varying degrees of physical input to counteract. Doing so is clearly possible but being possible does not make a warped shaft fundamentally sound.


Regards,
Jim




</div></div>

I'm not sure I totally buy into this theory. When using a pendilum stroke, the tip will always end up addressing the cue ball at the same spot. Yes, the tip might take a little different path on the back stroke, but it should follow that same path in reverse on the forward stroke, ending up in the exact same place, provided the shooter does not try to make any adjustments.

As for your previous post:

But I can suggest with little fear of contradiction that any indian worth his collection of scalps would choose an arrow that was less resistant to crosswinds ("deflection") than some other arrow.

Agreed?

That is true, but on a windy day, the indian better know just how much the wind will impact the aim. Does he aim 2 degrees to the right, or 1 degree to the right? As long as all of his arrows react to wind the same way, he will know how much to adjust. If he changes back and forth between the standard arrows that came with the bow, and the high performance after market arrows, he will be constantly recalculating how much compensation will be needed to hit his target accurately.

However, you have given me a great excuse to use when I miss. The wind blew my cue off the path! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Maybe it's the overhead fans in the poolroom that keep messing up my shooting! There must be some reason I keep missing! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


Steve

DeadCrab
08-23-2008, 06:53 AM
*************
I genuinely don't understand the debate. The science is there. Deflection is reduced. Deflection requires an adjustment to aim. Aim MUST be adjusted when shafts of differing deflection charactics are used.
************************

The science is where?

Where is there independent evaluation that shows that a low deflection cue has less deflection than a standard cue bridged at the pivot point?

Bambu
08-23-2008, 09:24 AM
What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you?

JoeW
08-23-2008, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you?

</div></div>

Now that is a good point. Perhaps opinions of those who have used both are worth reading. Those who have not worked with the issue should be asking questions !

1Time
08-23-2008, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you? </div></div>The reason that I tried a low deflection shaft as long as I did was because I bought it without first trying it. Had I tried it first for maybe 5 minutes, I would not have bought it. I played with a black dot Meucci for about a week with the intent of learning how to use it to my advantage. However, during that time I determined it required more of a change from me than I was willing to provide. And this is from someone who usually can pick up about any stick and run a rack. The only good that I found in this shaft was it made for a good break cue. Now that I understand that it could take a considerably longer period of time and a much larger change to my aiming system to adapt to, I regret having spent a week shooting with a L/D shaft in the first place.

Rich R.
08-23-2008, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you? </div></div>

I only tried a Predator shaft, actually a Predator cue, for a few minutes before determining that it wasn't for me. However, contrary to what you may be thinking, I had no trouble making balls with it. I really didn't notice any great difference in deflection between the Predator and the cue I was using at the time. Maybe scientific testing would prove me wrong, but I didn't notice the difference.

My problem with the predator shaft was the lack of feel. When hitting the cue ball I got very little feedback and the cue felt dead. This is what I didn't like about the cue.

I have also tried the OB-1 and I found it to be much more pleasing than the Predator, as far as the feel. To me it provided similar feel and feedback to a solid maple shaft. Again, I didn't find any great difference in deflection between the cue I was using at the time and I had no trouble making balls.

If I were forced to use one of these two shafts, I would choose the OB-1, however, since I like the shafts that came with my cues as much, or more, I see no reason to buy either of them.

Bambu
08-23-2008, 11:15 AM
I suppose a week is enough time, fair enough. To each his own.

JJFSTAR
08-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Yes Bambu and JoeW of course you’re right we’re normal; we thoroughly test it whatever it is and determine if it suits us. However sadly there will be in everything and forever the techno nay-sayer even though history has proven him over and over again to be the consummate idiot.

They will forever be singing the same tune. “Prove it!!!” “I ___ great with my old ___ it isn’t broke so how could your new ___ possibly help?”

Innovation either major or minor will always have these people that with neither personal experience nor general investigation scoff at it. 1Time bought a black dot screwed it onto his cue and tried it and determined that it isn’t for him; therefore this validates much of what he has to say I wish more experienced players would do this.

But there is a huge group of people who just are not that smart. It does not matter what you are talking about a golf club, a tennis racket, a running shoe or a pool cue. And you can talk to them until you are blue in the face and they are not going smarten up. It also surprises me that every now and then these people are really good at what they do. Some of these people have been doctors, lawyers, generals and presidents. So life continues to amaze me keeps it fresh.

Bambu
08-23-2008, 11:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you? </div></div>

I only tried a Predator shaft, actually a Predator cue, for a few minutes before determining that it wasn't for me. However, contrary to what you may be thinking, I had no trouble making balls with it. I really didn't notice any great difference in deflection between the Predator and the cue I was using at the time. Maybe scientific testing would prove me wrong, but I didn't notice the difference.

My problem with the predator shaft was the lack of feel. When hitting the cue ball I got very little feedback and the cue felt dead. This is what I didn't like about the cue.

I have also tried the OB-1 and I found it to be much more pleasing than the Predator, as far as the feel. To me it provided similar feel and feedback to a solid maple shaft. Again, I didn't find any great difference in deflection between the cue I was using at the time and I had no trouble making balls.

If I were forced to use one of these two shafts, I would choose the OB-1, however, since I like the shafts that came with my cues as much, or more, I see no reason to buy either of them.
</div></div>

I havent tried an ob-1 yet, but I would like to. I am surprised you didnt notice the change in deflection. Some med/long power shots with english would show the difference. What kind of shots did you take? I'm not saying you didnt give it enough of a chance. I mean, thats all up to you. But I would pretty much bet the house that there is a difference between L/D and standard shafts.

av84fun
08-23-2008, 11:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you also suggested to click "reply" and start typing. I just did that. Do you see any of your comments quoted?

But I am truly sorry that my posting methodology does not live up to your standards. I will struggle to find a way to live with that.

(-: </div></div>I wasn't aware of having set this standard, but it really warms my heart to see you've learned to reply like the rest of us, without caps. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>GEE, THANKS!</span>

av84fun
08-23-2008, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I know players who can play jam up with a warped shaft. But that does not mean that a straight shaft is not "fundamentally sound"...and the straighter the better.

Why? Because a warped shaft requires varying degrees of physical input to counteract. Doing so is clearly possible but being possible does not make a warped shaft fundamentally sound.


Regards,
Jim




</div></div>

I'm not sure I totally buy into this theory. When using a pendilum stroke, the tip will always end up addressing the cue ball at the same spot. Yes, the tip might take a little different path on the back stroke, but it should follow that same path in reverse on the forward stroke, ending up in the exact same place, provided the shooter does not try to make any adjustments.

As for your previous post:

But I can suggest with little fear of contradiction that any indian worth his collection of scalps would choose an arrow that was less resistant to crosswinds ("deflection") than some other arrow.

Agreed?

That is true, but on a windy day, the indian better know just how much the wind will impact the aim. Does he aim 2 degrees to the right, or 1 degree to the right? As long as all of his arrows react to wind the same way, he will know how much to adjust. If he changes back and forth between the standard arrows that came with the bow, and the high performance after market arrows, he will be constantly recalculating how much compensation will be needed to hit his target accurately.

However, you have given me a great excuse to use when I miss. The wind blew my cue off the path! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Maybe it's the overhead fans in the poolroom that keep messing up my shooting! There must be some reason I keep missing! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


Steve </div></div>

Steve, you better learn how to quote other poster's comments or 1time will rise up in righteous indignation.

(-:

Jim

av84fun
08-23-2008, 12:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> *************
I genuinely don't understand the debate. The science is there. Deflection is reduced. Deflection requires an adjustment to aim. Aim MUST be adjusted when shafts of differing deflection charactics are used.
************************

The science is where?

Where is there independent evaluation that shows that a low deflection cue has less deflection than a standard cue bridged at the pivot point?

</div></div>

You can't be serious. It's fine to debate whether L/D does any good but to dispute the reduction in deflection vs. the average conventional shaft is silly.

The "indpendent research" is being conducted on pool tables all over the world...including mine and JoeW's.

Are you aware of any credible source...including any manufacturer of traditional shafts, who disputes the existence of squirt reduction?

LOL

Jim

Fenwick
08-23-2008, 12:15 PM
av84fun
It was for the most part on the break shots playing straight pool. Near perfect break shots needing lots of draw and outside English and the balls were over cut. I keep a tally and when I stopped it was 15 over cut to 7 undercut. That gave me a starting point.
After reading right or wrong, "the Z2 is very unforgiving" Again I stopped using Side English for some time and it simplified the learning curve. Tip control.
"Plus the TIP is highly influential in how hard or soft a hit feels."
I did go with a Everest tip. Prior to getting the Z2 I had always used a Le Pro. So I changed tips and dropped down in size from a 12 mm to a 11.75 mm. I have a second shaft so thinking out loud I may have a Le Pro put on 1 shaft. The Everest tip does seem to flatten out a bit faster then the Le Pro.
Bambu
I guess you could count me amongst those who initially did not like my Z2 or a L.D. shaft. After 2 weeks of frustration I went back to my McDermott D10. My instructor, coach, friend asked why I switched. Comfort Zone. He thought I played better with the new cue. Even when he's not giving me a lesson he will watch my practice or game from afar or up close and personal. It reinforces proper fundamentals when the teacher is looking over your shoulder.
JoeW
"I found that the least deflection is obtained when the Letter Z is facing the sky (or rotated 180 degrees). There was 10 - 15% less deflection when the Z is in the "correct" position."
Thank you for that tip. That could be a key to slightly more consistent shot making.
I never meant to imply a L.D. shaft made me play better or shots easier. At this point it only makes me think more every turn at the table.
And I'm sorry if quoting in this form is bad manners. If it is I'll cease and desist. I don't know how to do a reply too several good points in one post without sounding like a scatter brain. Would it be better to have 3, 4, or 5 posts in a row? I don't know how to make those nice boxes in a reply, seriously. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to educate me.

JoeW
08-23-2008, 06:48 PM
Fenwick, I do not remember where or when I read it but the idea goes soemthing like this. One side of the shaft has straighter grain than the other (the nature of wood) and that all shafts produce less deflection in one particular orientation. The idea is to shoot several (30) shots rotating the cue stick 90 degrees
for each succeeding shot. If you study the results you will find that one orinetation produces the least deflection.

Whne I studied my shaft's characteristics I found that one orientation was best. I do not know if having the "Z" face up is best on all cues or if you have to determine which is the better orientation. It does seem that once this orientation has been found there is little difference between that position and the position at 180 degrees.

It seems to me that the way in which a Predator is made that this shaft orientation should not be a significant factor. However, I did find that one side does produce less deflection so now I have the tip marked and it is part of my routine to have this mark up on all shots.

There is some controversy suggesting that this is not a real issue, that it is moot, that it leads to deformation of the tip. In my experience using LePro tips I have had no subsequent problems. For me it is a real issue and I use the same orientation for 90 - 95% of my shots. Now it just part of my fundamental setup.

At the bottom of each post there is a "Reply" button and a "Quote" button. Use the Quote button to get all of what the prior poster said. You can edit out parts of the quote that are not needed in your reply.

1Time
08-23-2008, 06:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, you better learn how to quote other poster's comments or 1time will rise up in righteous indignation.

(-:

Jim </div></div>False. Of course I realize this is posted in jest. However, I am certain you are aware that one of the two easier ways that I suggested earlier as an alternative to replying in CAPS was simply to click on "Reply" and start typing. And obviously the point I've made regarding this matter had only to do with you typing your replies entirely in CAPS, nothing to do with anyone else and nothing to do with quoting other poster's comments when replying. That means no one but you did anything objectionable.

And to shed light on your previous false comments on this CAPS matter, here are the current top two Google returns for the words "capital", "letters", and "shout". These clearly show me correct and you wrong. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/do-not-use-all-capitals.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps

A few quotes from these sites that cut to the chase.

"If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting."

"Capital letters are best left for their intended usage and, sparingly, to emphasize a particular word or phrase."

"... it became solely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps."

JoeW
08-23-2008, 06:59 PM
To determine the "best" orientation I used the method described in the prior post. While no one called me on it, I did not run my study in the manner described. Actually, I determined which orientation was best for my three favorite shafts first (one was a Meucci shaft on a Meucci butt, one was a Mottey shaft on a Mottey butt and the last was a Predator shaft on the Mottey butt). After determining the best orientation for each shaft I conducted the next study to determine if there was a difference in the deflection produced by each shaft as previously reported.

I now use a Predator shaft on a Mottey butt. I do not use this shaft for breaking or jumping.

While I have not studied all possible combinations under all circumstances I did find the 10 - 15% difference due to shaft orinetation and a 30 - 40% difference between shafts. The differences were of such a magnitude that in my case no further study was needed. I simply switched shafts and learned to adjust my stroke as needed. My game has improved substantially but not all of the improvment can be attributed to the shaft. I do think that having a "better" shaft in the long run made it easier to acquire new and better skills.

On the rare occasions when I use some other cue stick I now find that 14 mm sticks are more forgiving on simple shots. However, I am not able to get the accuracy or positional effects with a 14 mm tip on an traditional cue.

Rich R.
08-23-2008, 07:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I am wondering after reading all this is: Amongst the guys who dont like the l/d shafts for whatever reason, how long did you play with one before deciding they werent for you? </div></div>

I only tried a Predator shaft, actually a Predator cue, for a few minutes before determining that it wasn't for me. However, contrary to what you may be thinking, I had no trouble making balls with it. I really didn't notice any great difference in deflection between the Predator and the cue I was using at the time. Maybe scientific testing would prove me wrong, but I didn't notice the difference.

My problem with the predator shaft was the lack of feel. When hitting the cue ball I got very little feedback and the cue felt dead. This is what I didn't like about the cue.

I have also tried the OB-1 and I found it to be much more pleasing than the Predator, as far as the feel. To me it provided similar feel and feedback to a solid maple shaft. Again, I didn't find any great difference in deflection between the cue I was using at the time and I had no trouble making balls.

If I were forced to use one of these two shafts, I would choose the OB-1, however, since I like the shafts that came with my cues as much, or more, I see no reason to buy either of them.
</div></div>

I havent tried an ob-1 yet, but I would like to. I am surprised you didnt notice the change in deflection. Some med/long power shots with english would show the difference. What kind of shots did you take? I'm not saying you didnt give it enough of a chance. I mean, thats all up to you. But I would pretty much bet the house that there is a difference between L/D and standard shafts. </div></div>

Bambu, in both cases, I just rolled the balls onto the table and shot a variety of shots. As I said, scientific testing could prove me wrong. I was just hitting balls and making shots. As I said, I didn't have any problem making balls.
Another possibility is that my shooting style doesn't depend on low deflection shafts. I honestly couldn't tell you if I shot a long power shot, with English. That isn't something I do often. I also believe my cue shafts are pretty good quality, so the Predator and the OB-1 had to live up to a high standard.

Whatever the case, I received no indication that either of these shafts would have any positive effect on my game and I didn't care for the feel of one of them. Ring up a "No Sale" for me.

I don't think I am wrong, for not liking the low deflection shafts, just as I don't think you are right for liking them. It is just a case of "different strokes for different folks".

Fenwick
08-23-2008, 08:02 PM
If you study the results you will find that one orinetation produces the least deflection.
Understood!

When I studied my shaft's characteristics I found that one orientation was best. I do not know if having the "Z" face up is best on all cues or if you have to determine which is the better orientation. It does seem that once this orientation has been found there is little difference between that position and the position at 180 degrees.
Copy that.

It seems to me that the way in which a Predator is made that this shaft orientation should not be a significant factor. However, I did find that one side does produce less deflection so now I have the tip marked and it is part of my routine to have this mark up on all shots.
I used the alignment method you described playing with a crocked cues. Chalk mark or Sharpe line near the tip. I never thought it would apply to a straight shaft. And I grew up being the son of a Cabinet Maker.

There is some controversy suggesting that this is not a real issue, that it is moot, that it leads to deformation of the tip. In my experience using LePro tips I have had no subsequent problems. For me it is a real issue and I use the same orientation for 90 - 95% of my shots. Now it just part of my fundamental setup.

I can try it see where it leads. The gentleman I deal with for tip replacement lets me hand pick the tip I want. LePros do vary a bit on hardness due to age,the color is darker on some and they vary in length also. Yes I can do it myself but for $5.00 a pop and a beer at the pool hall why not have a pro do it.

At the bottom of each post there is a "Reply" button and a "Quote" button.

I'll give it a try now. Thank you Sir.

av84fun
08-23-2008, 10:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Steve, you better learn how to quote other poster's comments or 1time will rise up in righteous indignation.

(-:

Jim </div></div>False. Of course I realize this is posted in jest. However, I am certain you are aware that one of the two easier ways that I suggested earlier as an alternative to replying in CAPS was simply to click on "Reply" and start typing. And obviously the point I've made regarding this matter had only to do with you typing your replies entirely in CAPS, nothing to do with anyone else and nothing to do with quoting other poster's comments when replying. That means no one but you did anything objectionable.

And to shed light on your previous false comments on this CAPS matter, here are the current top two Google returns for the words "capital", "letters", and "shout". These clearly show me correct and you wrong. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/do-not-use-all-capitals.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_caps

A few quotes from these sites that cut to the chase.

"If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting."

"Capital letters are best left for their intended usage and, sparingly, to emphasize a particular word or phrase."

"... it became solely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps." </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Oh...Hoax Slayer...the Bastion of Right and Wrong in earth!

LOL!

I am not as ego-involved as you seem to be on the subject of being "right or wrong."

But as the nature of many posts on internet forums in general prove, they are NOT representative of polite, civilized society.

As a matter of fact, it is well known in the phychology community that the anonimity provided by such forums tends to bring out the worst is some people's personalities.

But TRUST ME...I did not just shout at you. In fact, what I did was to make that text more readable.

BUT you hang on to the often silly customs of the internet world if you wish.</span>

(-:

Jim

Bambu
08-24-2008, 06:11 AM
I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless.

If anyone is wondering, its very easy to test for shaft deflection. Just shoot down table at a target, such as a piece of chalk on a short rail. Use a particular amount of left or right spin. Dont compensate for deflection, just aim straight despite the spin. Mark the spot with another piece of chalk, then try the same shot with another cue. Obviously, try to be consistant in your shot speed/spin. I tried first with a house cue, then a good schon, then the predator z-2. And they came in as I expected, with the Dufferin house cue deflecting most, and the z-2 the least. It helps to have a friend mark the exact spots the balls hit on the rail.

bignick31985
08-24-2008, 11:26 AM
Whoa, this thing took off, lol.

av84fun
08-24-2008, 01:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless.

If anyone is wondering, its very easy to test for shaft deflection. Just shoot down table at a target, such as a piece of chalk on a short rail. Use a particular amount of left or right spin. Dont compensate for deflection, just aim straight despite the spin. Mark the spot with another piece of chalk, then try the same shot with another cue. Obviously, try to be consistant in your shot speed/spin. I tried first with a house cue, then a good schon, then the predator z-2. And they came in as I expected, with the Dufferin house cue deflecting most, and the z-2 the least. It helps to have a friend mark the exact spots the balls hit on the rail. </div></div>

Bambu, consider this. For those FEW who use very little english, an L/D shaft would reduce squirt to virtually zero thereby entirely eliminating the need for aim compensation.

That's an important benefit IMHO.

Re: your experiment, here's the problem. It relies on the notion that the shooter will strike the CB in exactly the same spot during the experiment.

That simply won't happen. Chalk up your cue and use the 9 ball as a CB and aim for the center of the loop in the 9.

At medium or higher shot speeds (probably even for softer shots too) you will see that there will be meaningful variation in where the tip contacts the CB.

IMHO, even among the pros, unintended squirt/swerve/throw is one of the leading causes of missed shots.

Therefore, also IMHO, reducing the error margin resulting from the inevitable unintentional use of side (or more/less side than intended) is the leading reason for many pros adopting L/D shafts.

As JoeW did, testing can involve numerous shots so that an average result can be achieved and there is merit to that approach.

However, the average of 0 and 100 is 50! (-:

So, for human trials, I think scientists would agree that dozens of people shooting hundreds of shots would be required to achieve something resembling a definitive result.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
08-24-2008, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bambu, consider this. For those FEW who use very little english, an L/D shaft would reduce squirt to virtually zero thereby entirely eliminating the need for aim compensation.
</div></div>

For those of us who tend to use as little side english as possible, a L/D shaft is definitely pointless.

Also, for those of us who have been playing this game for many years prior to the introduction of L/D shafts, adjusting to L/D shafts is an adjustment that we really don't have to make. We already make subconscious adjustments when using side spin and normal solid maple shafts.

Bambu
08-24-2008, 07:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless.

If anyone is wondering, its very easy to test for shaft deflection. Just shoot down table at a target, such as a piece of chalk on a short rail. Use a particular amount of left or right spin. Dont compensate for deflection, just aim straight despite the spin. Mark the spot with another piece of chalk, then try the same shot with another cue. Obviously, try to be consistant in your shot speed/spin. I tried first with a house cue, then a good schon, then the predator z-2. And they came in as I expected, with the Dufferin house cue deflecting most, and the z-2 the least. It helps to have a friend mark the exact spots the balls hit on the rail. </div></div>

Bambu, consider this. For those FEW who use very little english, an L/D shaft would reduce squirt to virtually zero thereby entirely eliminating the need for aim compensation.

That's an important benefit IMHO.

Re: your experiment, here's the problem. It relies on the notion that the shooter will strike the CB in exactly the same spot during the experiment.

That simply won't happen. Chalk up your cue and use the 9 ball as a CB and aim for the center of the loop in the 9.

At medium or higher shot speeds (probably even for softer shots too) you will see that there will be meaningful variation in where the tip contacts the CB.

IMHO, even among the pros, unintended squirt/swerve/throw is one of the leading causes of missed shots.

Therefore, also IMHO, reducing the error margin resulting from the inevitable unintentional use of side (or more/less side than intended) is the leading reason for many pros adopting L/D shafts.

As JoeW did, testing can involve numerous shots so that an average result can be achieved and there is merit to that approach.

However, the average of 0 and 100 is 50! (-:

So, for human trials, I think scientists would agree that dozens of people shooting hundreds of shots would be required to achieve something resembling a definitive result.

Regards,
Jim</div></div>

Thats a good point about the deflection, even while using center ball. Point well taken, but the bigger differences come into play when using english(IMO).

As far as the test goes, I see nothing wrong with it. Naturally the more times you do it, the more accurate the results will be. Also the more consistent the shooter is in his attempts, the better the results. Joes test is probably better, but it also takes alot longer. But I didnt make up that test anyway, it was part of bca pool school. If you compare a z-2 to a house cue, the results should be pretty clear. If I remember correctly, there was more than a chalks length of difference when comparing a house cue to the regular predator 314 I had during the test. At the time, I didnt think once was enough either. But after trying a few more times, the results were fairly similar.

av84fun
08-24-2008, 09:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless.

If anyone is wondering, its very easy to test for shaft deflection. Just shoot down table at a target, such as a piece of chalk on a short rail. Use a particular amount of left or right spin. Dont compensate for deflection, just aim straight despite the spin. Mark the spot with another piece of chalk, then try the same shot with another cue. Obviously, try to be consistant in your shot speed/spin. I tried first with a house cue, then a good schon, then the predator z-2. And they came in as I expected, with the Dufferin house cue deflecting most, and the z-2 the least. It helps to have a friend mark the exact spots the balls hit on the rail. </div></div>

Bambu, consider this. For those FEW who use very little english, an L/D shaft would reduce squirt to virtually zero thereby entirely eliminating the need for aim compensation.

That's an important benefit IMHO.

Re: your experiment, here's the problem. It relies on the notion that the shooter will strike the CB in exactly the same spot during the experiment.

That simply won't happen. Chalk up your cue and use the 9 ball as a CB and aim for the center of the loop in the 9.

At medium or higher shot speeds (probably even for softer shots too) you will see that there will be meaningful variation in where the tip contacts the CB.

IMHO, even among the pros, unintended squirt/swerve/throw is one of the leading causes of missed shots.

Therefore, also IMHO, reducing the error margin resulting from the inevitable unintentional use of side (or more/less side than intended) is the leading reason for many pros adopting L/D shafts.

As JoeW did, testing can involve numerous shots so that an average result can be achieved and there is merit to that approach.

However, the average of 0 and 100 is 50! (-:

So, for human trials, I think scientists would agree that dozens of people shooting hundreds of shots would be required to achieve something resembling a definitive result.

Regards,
Jim</div></div>

Thats a good point about the deflection, even while using center ball. Point well taken, but the bigger differences come into play when using english(IMO).

As far as the test goes, I see nothing wrong with it. Naturally the more times you do it, the more accurate the results will be. Also the more consistent the shooter is in his attempts, the better the results. Joes test is probably better, but it also takes alot longer. But I didnt make up that test anyway, it was part of bca pool school. If you compare a z-2 to a house cue, the results should be pretty clear. If I remember correctly, there was more than a chalks length of difference when comparing a house cue to the regular predator 314 I had during the test. At the time, I didnt think once was enough either. But after trying a few more times, the results were fairly similar. </div></div>

Right you are. Establishing that there is more/less deflection between cues doesn't take extensive testing. But determining how much of a difference...which is necessary when players strive to adjuct their aim to a L/D shaft, very extensive testing is required IMHO

Regards,
Jim

Bambu
08-24-2008, 10:23 PM
I strongly agree, Jim. It takes awhile to figure out the way the shaft plays. I had to shoot on just the vertical for a few sets, then gradually worked my way toward the CB edges. Definately not an easy transition, nothing like getting used to a different 13mm would be. But by the 3rd or 4th outing I started feeling pretty comfortable, and other cues felt weird. I didnt expect to get dependent on the thing so quickly, but thats how it worked out for me.

Deeman3
08-25-2008, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfdancer,

Exactly my point. If I had to trade my 15 year old Pings for 1950's clubs it would kill even a hacker like me. If my TA Davis wooden rackets, I still have two) were to be hit by a modern player today, they would laugh. However, my 1968 Balabuska plays just about as well as my Schons and if I had to use one of those older cues, I would hardly notice. I bet even some of these techno kids could play pretty sporty with it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Dee,
Do you think that it's because the advances made in golf clubs and tennis rackets are designed to increase the speed or distance of a shot with the same energy? That isn't something that difficult to engineer. The goal for pool cues isn't to get more speed or distance. Your 68 B will allow you to generate just about the same power as any cue. So we are talking about very minor variations in performance of pool cues. And since the goal is more accuracy, testing is somewhat subjective. You might be more accurate with your Balabuska, and I might be more accurate with a Earl Strickland model Cuetec. Is it the arrow, or the indian?
Steve </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Great Point Steve. I do think that there is no question that those 1950 golf clubs are longer, and in most cases ore accurate as well (Larger Sweet Spot) while the cue stick may or may not be more accurate, in application, to some players. Again, as one guy says, all the top pros are using mostly multi piece shafts but how needed it that? I think a lot of that may be sponsorhip, free shafts and such. Again, what would be the downside of not having the new shaft technology? I don't think it would change the level of play or ranking one bit. Aside from the Sardo being a major aide to, for instance, Corey Duel, the technology is not that great in pool, althought I love the Diamond tables. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif


Again, take away the new shafts, does it really change you ultimate game? Take away your new tennis racket and your in trouble.

Now it that was a such thing as ZERO deflection shaft, it might change the game as one adjustment completely goes away. Now it just changes to less which may or may not be easier for some to judge. </span>

av84fun
08-25-2008, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I dont mean to knock your opinion rich. It is as good as anyone elses. As we all know, a cue is a very personal choice. I think you may have hit it on the head though. If you dont use alot of spin, the benefit of a L/D shaft is almost pointless. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bambu, consider this. For those FEW who use very little english, an L/D shaft would reduce squirt to virtually zero thereby entirely eliminating the need for aim compensation.
</div></div>

For those of us who tend to use as little side english as possible, a L/D shaft is definitely pointless.

Also, for those of us who have been playing this game for many years prior to the introduction of L/D shafts, adjusting to L/D shafts is an adjustment that we really don't have to make. We already make subconscious adjustments when using side spin and normal solid maple shafts. </div></div>

"As little side english as possible" is not 0 english. The point is that deflection reduction is there when you need it.

I have been playing pool for 40 years so I've been around much longer than L/D has.

I too was skeptical when the technology first was introduced but decided to try it...truth be told...because Allison Fisher adopted the technology and was eating everyone else's lunch.

I went the Predator route and am very pleased that I did. The adjustment time was brief and the improvement in my game has been measurable.

Regards,
Jim

dbrante
08-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Hello all. I would like to add my opinion on this topic. I admire advances in technology however I don't believe the comparisons to other equipment used in other games really applies to the debate on cue shafts. The original question was which high performance shaft is better. I believe as some have implied to use what feels right to you. If you like a low deflection shaft and the way it feels and believe the investment is worth it then who can argue with that? Hopefully it gives you the confidence to focus and make more shots and win more matches. If you don't shoot any better, oh well? If you miss more, sell it!

Deflection is increased with the amount of side and the amount of stroke. On distant shots deflection becomes more of an issue, but so does swerve. Shots where the CB and OB are close, throw is more of an issue. Let's not forget that the balls, cloth and rails also affect how the game is played.

I heard Mosconi quoted as having said there are two speeds to hit the ball, soft and softer. Some may argue he was a 14.1 player and didn't need to hit hard. I see many 9 ball shooters softly stroke their shots in and get great position for the next shot. When you get out of line, maybe it's time to play a safety rather than a cross table shot with spin to three rail your CB back into shape.

I recently purchased a Schon and gave the Predator Z2 (Everest tip) a try and it seemed like a nice shaft with a good solid hit. It didn't fit the cue well and I ended up getting rid of it and use a 12 mm Schon shaft. I really like the hit of the cue. I like the feel of the Schon better than my last cue and as well as the Predator. It is different. Better for me. I think I am making more shots. I think it gives me more confidence. I was playing in an 8 tournament and after I walked the rail on a carom my opponent asked me if it was a Predator shaft. I said nope. He said nice stroke.

JJFSTAR
08-25-2008, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those of us who tend to use as little side english as possible, a L/D shaft is definitely pointless.</div></div>

I also am a minimalist BTW but why do you use as little side english as possible?

Rich R.
08-25-2008, 09:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those of us who tend to use as little side english as possible, a L/D shaft is definitely pointless.</div></div>

I also am a minimalist BTW but why do you use as little side english as possible? </div></div>

Consider exactly what I stated. I use as little as possible. On some shots, as little as possible is 0 side spin. On other shots, as little as possible could be 2 to 3 tips of side spin.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be that I only use side english when it is absolutely necessary. My preference is to play natural angles whenever possible.

av84fun
08-25-2008, 11:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbrante</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello all. I would like to add my opinion on this topic. I admire advances in technology however I don't believe the comparisons to other equipment used in other games really applies to the debate on cue shafts. The original question was which high performance shaft is better. I believe as some have implied to use what feels right to you. If you like a low deflection shaft and the way it feels and believe the investment is worth it then who can argue with that? Hopefully it gives you the confidence to focus and make more shots and win more matches. If you don't shoot any better, oh well? If you miss more, sell it!

Deflection is increased with the amount of side and the amount of stroke. On distant shots deflection becomes more of an issue, but so does swerve. Shots where the CB and OB are close, throw is more of an issue. Let's not forget that the balls, cloth and rails also affect how the game is played.

I heard Mosconi quoted as having said there are two speeds to hit the ball, soft and softer. Some may argue he was a 14.1 player and didn't need to hit hard. I see many 9 ball shooters softly stroke their shots in and get great position for the next shot. When you get out of line, maybe it's time to play a safety rather than a cross table shot with spin to three rail your CB back into shape.

I recently purchased a Schon and gave the Predator Z2 (Everest tip) a try and it seemed like a nice shaft with a good solid hit. It didn't fit the cue well and I ended up getting rid of it and use a 12 mm Schon shaft. I really like the hit of the cue. I like the feel of the Schon better than my last cue and as well as the Predator. It is different. Better for me. I think I am making more shots. I think it gives me more confidence. I was playing in an 8 tournament and after I walked the rail on a carom my opponent asked me if it was a Predator shaft. I said nope. He said nice stroke. </div></div>

Excellent first post. Welcome.

I would just offer one correction.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Deflection is increased with the amount of side and the amount of stroke. </div></div>

I believe that there is no appreciable increase in squirt caused by the force of the shot which is what I assume you meant by "amount of stroke."

In addition, while the departure from and return to the path of aim caused by swerve certainly is a greater factor over longer distances, swerve isn't much of an issue...if an issue at all, on shots struck on the vertical centerline.

Swerve is also reduced considerably with high speed regardless of where the CB is struck.

But yes, absolutely...whatever cue feels best to the player is the cue that should be used.

Regards,
Jim

1Time
08-26-2008, 12:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But yes, absolutely...whatever cue feels best to the player is the cue that should be used.</div></div>Correction. What matters most is what cue shoots better for the player, and that's regardless of any other factor, feel, hit, deflection, weight, tip, taper, diameter, brand, model, etc.

av84fun
08-26-2008, 12:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But yes, absolutely...whatever cue feels best to the player is the cue that should be used.</div></div>Correction. What matters most is what cue shoots better for the player, and that's regardless of any other factor, feel, hit, deflection, weight, tip, taper, diameter, brand, model, etc. </div></div>

Correction yourself. Ummmm...cues don't shoot for the players. It is quite the other way around.

But the POINT of your post was merely to doggedly disagree with everything I post...which is quite foolish of you in this case since any reasonable person would have noticed that I was essentially agreeing with your views...however clumsily you sometimes present them.

Are you this grumpy in your real life...or just your virtual life here?

LOL

Jim

Kerbouchard
08-26-2008, 12:39 PM
I bought a Schon with the Schon OB1 upgrade about a week ago, and all I can say is Wow!

I don't know that I am getting low deflection, but I do know that it has amplified my english, a lot. I had been used to using extreme english to get the kind of action I want, but with this cue, extreme english is downright dangerous.

When I used to draw off a cut shot, the cue ball would come back, now it comes back with a noticeable curve. It's taking some getting used to and it feels like every shot is hit about twice as hard as I had meant to, but it truly does allow me to do things I could NOT do before.

I used to be a skeptic and I had always said that the cue doesn't matter, only the player, but this cue has changed my mind.

av84fun
08-26-2008, 12:54 PM
Great news. What tip...and tip radius, came with the OB1 shaft? And is it different from what tip was on your old cue?

Regards,
Jim

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kerbouchard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I bought a Schon with the Schon OB1 upgrade about a week ago, and all I can say is Wow!

I don't know that I am getting low deflection, but I do know that it has amplified my english, a lot. I had been used to using extreme english to get the kind of action I want, but with this cue, extreme english is downright dangerous.

When I used to draw off a cut shot, the cue ball would come back, now it comes back with a noticeable curve. It's taking some getting used to and it feels like every shot is hit about twice as hard as I had meant to, but it truly does allow me to do things I could NOT do before.

I used to be a skeptic and I had always said that the cue doesn't matter, only the player, but this cue has changed my mind. </div></div>

Kerbouchard
08-26-2008, 01:13 PM
Its the standard OB1 tip...the Everest. The only thing that makes it different than a regular OB1 shaft is that I guess OB1 sent several of their shafts to Schon where Schon specifically fits them to their style of joint. I tried the regular OB1 shaft with the Schon base and did not care for it.

The OB1 Schon shaft with the Schon is nothing short of amazing. The fitted joing made a huge difference.

From what I understand, several manufacturers had courted Schon with using their shafts, but Schon never found a shaft that they liked better then their standard shaft. Apparently at a billiards show, they tried it with the OB1 shaft and liked it so they are now marketing a 'Schon OB1' shaft.
http://www.schoncues.com/html/misc_items.html

JJFSTAR
08-28-2008, 10:15 AM
My favorite shot is a very soft, centerball and railless shot. Unless it is game ball and then the only condition that changes is that very soft goes up to just soft. But when you say;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Consider exactly what I stated. I use as little as possible. On some shots, as little as possible is 0 side spin. On other shots, as little as possible could be 2 to 3 tips of side spin.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be that <u>I only use side english when it is absolutely necessary.</u> My preference is to play natural angles whenever possible. </div></div>


And I am just asking why? We may be saying the same thing; however I don’t know for sure. The statements “I will only use right when it would be necessary to get a leave for my next ball” and “I will use right only if it truly makes it easier to get on my next ball, an easier shot on my next ball or makes the shot itself easier” are two entirely different statements in my mind. All I am asking is what kind of theory do you have and more importantly why?

jondrums
08-28-2008, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LARGER TYPE FACES...WITHIN REASON, ARE EASIER TO READ.</div></div>

I'm a little late to the party, but I feel it is very important to clear up this little mistake that I commonly see people making.

There are many many studies on legibility, which have compared the legibility of "ALL CAPS" to "Undercase". For the same font-type and font-size, without fail every study finds ALL CAPS inferior.

The reason is that although the letters are larger, we have learned to use visual cues that aren't present in ALL CAPS style: The shape of the words! Hanging letters like g,j,p,q,y and letters with raised parts like b,d,f,h,k,l,t provide the spice of life that holds things together visually.

Us font-snobs like to laugh at city planners who make street signs in all capitols. I can "read" the name of a street by its shape long before I can make out the letters... ALL CAPS just looks like a bunch of rectangles from a distance.

Jon

av84fun
08-28-2008, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jondrums</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LARGER TYPE FACES...WITHIN REASON, ARE EASIER TO READ.</div></div>

I'm a little late to the party, but I feel it is very important to clear up this little mistake that I commonly see people making.

There are many many studies on legibility, which have compared the legibility of "ALL CAPS" to "Undercase". For the same font-type and font-size, without fail every study finds ALL CAPS inferior.

The reason is that although the letters are larger, we have learned to use visual cues that aren't present in ALL CAPS style: The shape of the words! Hanging letters like g,j,p,q,y and letters with raised parts like b,d,f,h,k,l,t provide the spice of life that holds things together visually.

Us font-snobs like to laugh at city planners who make street signs in all capitols. I can "read" the name of a street by its shape long before I can make out the letters... ALL CAPS just looks like a bunch of rectangles from a distance.
Jon </div></div>

How far away from your computer do you sit???

LOL....ooops...I didn't mean to shout while laughing out loud...so....lol....or should it be Lol??

(-:

DeadCrab
08-28-2008, 12:11 PM
Since you are laughing at your own witticism, the laughing should be rather muted, should it not?

av84fun
08-28-2008, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DeadCrab</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Since you are laughing at your own witticism, the laughing should be rather muted, should it not?

</div></div>

That is a qualitative judgment based on how funny I felt the witticism was.

Do you think that all people should react to the same witticism in the same way?

And did you see that, in the exercise proper humility, I DID mute the "volume" of the laughing?

And since your post descended into pettiness, let me reprimand you for presenting your comment in the present tense i.e. "Since you are laughing at your own witticism..." Your post should have read "Since you laughed at your own witticism..."

The intent of my comments is to be humorous but only modestly so and therefore, I will sign off with...

ctm

Which I hereby coin to mean "chuckle to myself."
(-:

Jim

New2Pool
08-28-2008, 02:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jondrums</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LARGER TYPE FACES...WITHIN REASON, ARE EASIER TO READ.</div></div>

I'm a little late to the party, but I feel it is very important to clear up this little mistake that I commonly see people making.

There are many many studies on legibility, which have compared the legibility of "ALL CAPS" to "Undercase". For the same font-type and font-size, without fail every study finds ALL CAPS inferior.

The reason is that although the letters are larger, we have learned to use visual cues that aren't present in ALL CAPS style: The shape of the words! Hanging letters like g,j,p,q,y and letters with raised parts like b,d,f,h,k,l,t provide the spice of life that holds things together visually.

Us font-snobs like to laugh at city planners who make street signs in all capitols. I can "read" the name of a street by its shape long before I can make out the letters... ALL CAPS just looks like a bunch of rectangles from a distance.
Jon </div></div>

How far away from your computer do you sit???

LOL....ooops...I didn't mean to shout while laughing out loud...so....lol....or should it be Lol??

(-:
</div></div>

I think the LOL, lol, and Lol depends on how hard you laughed. Of course, if you thought it was extremely funny you could go for ROFL or WML. Although the later two are rarely meant to be taken literally.

I thought the comments were interesting about CAPS vs. Proper case. I just wish citations or links to the articles would have been included. I suppose the "different strokes for different folks" expression applies on this board although if it is taken to apply to pool it could start a debate over teaching methods and possibly aiming systems.

av84fun
08-28-2008, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> it could start a debate over teaching methods and possibly aiming systems.
</div></div>

Oh, I can't wait for the next aiming system thread so that I can be told that I don't know what I am doing and/or that I'm not doing what I think I am doing!

(-:

Jim

Sid_Vicious
08-28-2008, 06:10 PM
Rich...Seems an odd cue to use, even with a hard tip, unless it's weighted a lot different than just about every break cue I've used. Most are back heavy, but that doen't mean Strickland's is, but if so...that'd be a tough long stick to jump with IMO...sid

Rich R.
08-28-2008, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My favorite shot is a very soft, centerball and railless shot. Unless it is game ball and then the only condition that changes is that very soft goes up to just soft. But when you say;

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Consider exactly what I stated. I use as little as possible. On some shots, as little as possible is 0 side spin. On other shots, as little as possible could be 2 to 3 tips of side spin.
Maybe a more accurate statement would be that <u>I only use side english when it is absolutely necessary.</u> My preference is to play natural angles whenever possible. </div></div>


And I am just asking why? We may be saying the same thing; however I don’t know for sure. The statements “I will only use right when it would be necessary to get a leave for my next ball” and “I will use right only if it truly makes it easier to get on my next ball, an easier shot on my next ball or makes the shot itself easier” are two entirely different statements in my mind. All I am asking is what kind of theory do you have and more importantly why?
</div></div>
Some players tend to spin almost all shots and they play multi rail position on many shots.
In all facets of playing pool, I am a firm believer of the "KISS Method", "Keep It Simple Stupid". I try to keep my game as simple as possible and that includes using side spin only when absolutely necessary.
The simple approach may not work for everyone, but I find that it works best for me.

Rich R.
08-28-2008, 07:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rich...Seems an odd cue to use, even with a hard tip, unless it's weighted a lot different than just about every break cue I've used. Most are back heavy, but that doen't mean Strickland's is, but if so...that'd be a tough long stick to jump with IMO...sid </div></div>
Sid, all I can say is that neither of my break cues are back heavy. I really don't care for back heavy cues and I wouldn't have one.
As far as Earl goes, I'm sure his break cue is made to his personal specs and they may be different from what we are all used to. I don't know what those specs are, but he definitely uses his break cue for jumping. That I know for sure.

skin
08-28-2008, 08:23 PM
I try to keep my game as simple as possible and that includes using side spin only when absolutely necessary.
The simple approach may not work for everyone, but I find that it works best for me. -Rich R.

Me, too. It gives you fewer things to worry about usually.