"Rosabelle, believe!"
Thomas Wayne
Deflection/Squirt and the Predator shaft phenomenon explained:
First a bit of history…
My first experiments with loaded shafts came about for the same reasons
as many other cuemakers: the search for better performance. Yes, that’s
right, the brass weighted ferrule (I tried steel) is OLD news. Many
before me, and many after me have played with it, all obtaining the same
results. I won’t bore you with the physics involved (though believe me,
I could), but the massive sideways cueball movement caused by a weighted
ferrule proves conclusively that greater tip mass produces less shaft
DEFLECTION (correct use of term; see B. Stroud definitions) and
correspondingly greater cueball deflection, which we lovingly call
"SQUIRT". This discovery prompted the question: What happens if we
REDUCE the mass at the tip of the shaft (I have coined the descriptive
phrase "negative loaded ferrule")? The answer to this helped me solve
another problem (actually two problems) I was having with Ivory
ferrules.
Because the winters in Alaska are so dry, Ivory ferrules tended to crack
uncontrollably. After much experimentation, I discovered that replacing
the standard maple tenon inside the ferrule with a softer wood allowed
the Ivory to shrink around the tenon -compressing it slightly- without
cracking the ferrule. This in turn led to another interesting
discovery. Ivory ferrules weigh approximately 25% more than phenolic
ferrules and, as I already knew, this causes them to exhibit more
squirt. Lo and behold, the softer tenon also weighs substantially less
than a maple tenon, and this factor eliminated the increase in squirt
caused by the heavier Ivory ferrule. The softer wood I use is Alaskan
Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as maple, but weighs almost
as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least tendency to warp of any
wood I have ever seen.
Fast forward to the early nineties. Alan Clawson approached me at a
tournament in Philadelphia to show me the new innovation he was involved
with: the Predator shaft/ferrule system. At that time, they wanted to
interest other cuemakers in buying laminated shafts from their company.
In the original illustrations he showed me, the ferrule tenon was drawn
as a SOLID phenolic rod. Of course, in production, the Predator ferrule
tenon is actually a thin walled HOLLOW phenolic tube extending about 2
to 3 inches into the shaft. To this day, I don’t know if the diagram I
was shown was a "smoke screen", or if they had intended to originally
use solid rod. Based on my understanding that it was to be solid, I
knew I wasn’t interested (phenolic weighs much more than maple), so I
passed. Incidentally, the idea of a laminated shaft is as old as the
hills; most of us have experimented with it at one time or another. In
fact, I have been told by a number of other long-time cuemakers that
George Balabushka experimented with laminated shafts in the sixties! As
an interesting bit of trivia, the Predator shaft is NOT patented (I
don’t believe it can be); the only patent of record for a laminated
shaft is co-held by Colorado cuemaker Dave Kikel. Nor have I been able
to find any recorded patent for the Predator ferrule system. Of course,
if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator, all he
has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the business
end of a shaft and use an additional ¾ inch or so for the ferrule tenon.
So, now you know just as much as I do about the Predator shaft (well,
maybe not quite as much), but we still haven’t answered two key
questions: 1) Why does the shaft with lower tip-mass (negative
loaded) squirt less? And 2) Should we really care so much about this
great spawn-of-Satan: SQUIRT?
Why lower tip mass reduces squirt if easy: the
equal-and-opposite-reaction principle factors in relative mass. Lets
ignore, for a moment, the major linear forces involved in driving the
cueball down the table, and just focus on the peripheral forces caused
by an off-center hit. And, for the purpose of illustration, lets liken
that action to one of hitting a round ball with a hammer- sort of like a
croquet mallet. If it’s a tennis ball and a sledge hammer, the ball is
gonna zoom with very little effect on the sledge. But if it’s a tack
hammer versus a bowling ball, well, I hope you get the picture. (Go
ahead and talk among yourselves a bit, if you need.) The lower mass
shaft tip is more easily moved aside- NOT flexed or bent, simply
shifted- by the cueball, resulting in what? Less squirt!
But is this result good? Do we really want less squirt, do we need less
squirt? ("…You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" Jack
Nicholson in *A Few Good Men*) Allow me to draw an analogy that relates
to my own profession… Every metal lathe in my shop has a dial attached
to the crank handles on the cross-slides. These dials are calibrated
with index marks that indicate each increment of travel occurring during
the use of the crank handle. So, by paying attention to these dials, I
can monitor and control the travel of the cross-slide (and therefore the
cutting tool) to an accuracy of ½ of one thousandth of an inch! If I
really wanted control, I could fit these cranks with dials twice as big,
with twice as many graduations. What I actually have done is equip
each lathe with electronic digital readouts which are accurate to 100
times the cross-slide dials. This gives me LOTS of fine-tune
adjustment. Now suppose instead I put little bitty dials with just a
few graduations on my cross-slides. Boy, I sure wouldn’t have much
range of control, now would I? Have you noticed how the Predator fans
have praised the small amount of english required to achieve dramatic
results? Wow! I just hope you always are applying the english exactly
the way you want it. After all, the cue doesn’t know whether you
executed the shot correctly, it just blindly performs as you direct it
to. I don’t think anyone would disagree that any cue that enhances and
amplifies good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify BAD
execution. If the car you drive is typical, it requires 2 ½ revolutions
of the steering wheel to turn the tightest radius possible for that
particular make/model. But certainly Detroit has the technology to
equip your car with a steering mechanism which could crank the front
wheels "lock-to-lock" with just a quarter turn of the steering wheel.
Would you like that? Huh, would ya? I didn’t think so.
Squirt exists. Every top player has learned to work with and around
it. If you believe that your game will be better with a "squirtless"
cue, buy a Predator. Or ask your favorite cuemaker to make you a
low-mass-tip (negative loaded) shaft. If he didn’t know how before (no
shame in that, very few do) he certainly will after he reads this
article. Just don’t blame me if your higher highs come with some lower
lows. My friend Bill, the mountain biker, loves to buy the latest in
titanium seat-post bolts- at $60 a pop- so he can shave 1/3 ounce off
his bike. My suggestion of passing up lunch to shave 1/3 ounce off his
ass seems to fall on deaf ears. As my water-skiing training partner,
Bob, loves to say (about new, ‘improved’ equipment): "Everybody wants to
BUY a better turn". My advice, as someone who really does know a little
something about pool cues and about physics, is: focus on improving
your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in pool the same way
you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).
TW
Ron Shepard
>Deflection/Squirt and the Predator shaft phenomenon explained:
[...]
>The softer wood I use is Alaskan
>Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as maple, but weighs almost
>as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least tendency to warp of any
>wood I have ever seen.
Are any of the laminated shafts available made of this?
[regarding Clawson...]
>Incidentally, the idea of a laminated shaft is as old as the
>hills; most of us have experimented with it at one time or another.
Do you mean laminated or spliced?
>[...] Of course,
>if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator, all he
>has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the business
>end of a shaft and use an additional 2 inch or so for the ferrule tenon.
I'm interested. Anyone out there doing this yet?
I'm a bit leary of the spliced shafts. How well are they holding up?
Have any of them come unglued yet?
> [...] Why lower tip mass reduces squirt if easy: the
>equal-and-opposite-reaction principle factors in relative mass. Lets
>ignore, for a moment, the major linear forces involved in driving the
>cueball down the table, and just focus on the peripheral forces caused
>by an off-center hit.
Could you explain exactly what you mean here? Are these forces due to
some non-rigid-body property of the shaft, to the finite contact time of
the tip on the ball, to the ball rotation during the finite contact time,
or what?
>[...] Have you noticed how the Predator fans
>have praised the small amount of english required to achieve dramatic
>results?
I've shot with a predator and I do not observe any such "magnification" of
spin. The spin you get on a ball pretty much comes just from the location
of the contact point of the tip on the ball. Players should not expect
any kind of superspin with a low-squirt shaft, just low squirt.
>[...] I don't think anyone would disagree that any cue that enhances and
>amplifies good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify BAD
>execution.
In my experience, there is no amplification of either good or bad spin.
I think that the only thing that is "amplified" are the errors with a
squirty stick -- the smaller the squirt, the smaller these errors.
>Squirt exists. Every top player has learned to work with and around
>it. If you believe that your game will be better with a "squirtless"
>cue, buy a Predator. Or ask your favorite cuemaker to make you a
>low-mass-tip (negative loaded) shaft.
I don't understand how squirt could possibly improve anyone's game,
whether they are a top player or a player like me. Of course we all take
some time to adjust to different stick characteristics. I do hope that
our favorite cue makers, including you, begin to make low-squirt sticks.
If squirt really does just depend on the shafts, then this shouldn't be
such a big deal.
>[...] My advice, as someone who really does know a little
>something about pool cues and about physics, is: focus on improving
>your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in pool the same way
>you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).
I agree. We (players) are looking for an instrument that stays in tune
(to push your analogy a bit further).
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Jim Waugh
tw> The softer wood I use is Alaskan
tw> Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as maple, but weighs
almost
tw> as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least tendency to warp of
any
tw> wood I have ever seen.
rs> Are any of the laminated shafts available made of this?
> [regarding Clawson...]
tw> Incidentally, the idea of a laminated shaft is as old as the
tw> hills; most of us have experimented with it at one time or another.
Brunswick and Shmelke , I believe, still have some. I visited Jim
Schmelke
last summer and he had some in his shop.
> >[...] Of course,
tw> if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator,
all he
tw> has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the
business
tw> end of a shaft and use an additional 2 inch or so for the ferrule
tenon.
rs> I'm interested. Anyone out there doing this yet?
Ray Gurgall of Northern Cues and Woodworking Specialties has been trying
this out for the last year. He has had some very good results. Of
course,
he thinks he has come up with something new.
P. O. Box 153
Norway, MI 49870
(906) 563-5188
Jim W.
AKA CueMaster
Thomas Wayne
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
>
> Are any of the laminated shafts available made of this?
>
Alaskan Yellow Cedar is much too soft to use entirely for a shaft. The
surface would never hold up to even average side impact (dings).
Internally, it works fine.
> Do you mean laminated or spliced?
>
I have experimented with both flat laminations and radial laminations.
Predator worshipers (which I am beginning to think you, Ron, may be)
note: radial lamination technology has been around forever. Many a
fishing rod has benefited from such construction.
>
> I'm interested. Anyone out there doing this yet?
>
Apparently I failed to make it clear that I have been doing this for
years.
>
> Could you explain exactly what you mean here? Are these forces due to
> some non-rigid-body property of the shaft, to the finite contact time of
> the tip on the ball, to the ball rotation during the finite contact time,
> or what?
>
Sorry Ron, the simple illustration (tack hammer, bowling ball…remember?)
I gave is as lowbrow as I know how to go. If you don’t get the rather
basic physics involved, I’m sure I don’t have teaching skill to
enlighten you further.
> I've shot with a predator and I do not observe any such "magnification" of
> spin. The spin you get on a ball pretty much comes just from the location
> of the contact point of the tip on the ball. Players should not expect
> any kind of superspin with a low-squirt shaft, just low squirt.
>
Don’t know where you came up with "magnification", it’s not a word I
used. But since you seem so sure that the only effect of less squirt
is, um, less squirt, then tell me, Ron, what do you suppose happens to
whatever energy would have been expended "squirting" the cueball? All
other factors being equal (stroke, speed, tip/cueball contact point,
etc.), how is the mystical force that WOULD have caused squirt from a
"squirty stick" (the "Anti-predator"?) dissipated? In your perfect (and
might I add, imaginary) world of "just low squirt", what happens to the
extra energy? Is there a little puff of smoke that I’ve failed to
notice? Is it just absorbed by the cueball, somehow? But hey, forget
logic. And don’t take MY word for any of this stuff. After all, what
do I know? I’ve only been building cues and experimenting with these
issues for sixteen years or so. And I’ve really only dissected two
actual Predator shafts in person. By dissected, I mean to say that I
played, weighed, x-rayed and filleted them. Eventually, I sectioned
both shafts into two inch pieces for the full length to analyze the
radial consistency, or lack thereof. But you Ron, you’ve SHOT with
one. Under the heat of THAT kind of superior study I might wilt, were
it not for the fact that most of the recent r.s.b. posts gushing with
joy over the Predator product have supported what I say. Go review Tarl
Roger Kudrick’s lengthy post reporting his analysis of the issue. These
are his words, not mine. Tarl reports "extra power", "more spin", "more
SPEED" with the same stroke. He even says: "Good thing I’ve recently
improved my ability to shoot straight, or I’d be putting all kinds of
unwanted spin on the ball." This is exactly the conclusion I’d come to
after several years of experimenting with shaft mass and balance
points. Really, Ron, if you want to debate these issues, put a little
meat on the bone. Explain how the dreaded squirt can just be eliminated
without any tradeoffs. Give us a little logic, a little science, a
little song and dance, something, anything. Flak alone doesn’t cut it.
>
> I don't understand how squirt could possibly improve anyone's game,
> whether they are a top player or a player like me.
I tried my best to be clear, with the limited time I had, but somehow
you thought I had claimed that squirt could "…improve anyone’s game…".
Let me make it as clear as I can: THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID. Did you get
that, Ron? What I did say is: "Squirt exists". And, it can be reduced
greatly. I’ve done it plenty. But there are tradeoffs involved. I’m
sorry if that’s too involved for you to understand, but that’s just how
it is.
> If squirt really does just depend on the shafts, then this shouldn't be
> such a big deal.
Yes, squirt really does just depend on the shaft (and components
thereof). Even the Predator folks would have to agree with that, since
Predator butts are a "private label" product from separate
manufacturer(s). And believe me, Ron, it's no big deal.
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
Just one man's opinion, but you might be overcharging a bit here.
TW
Ron Shepard
> Ron Shepard wrote:
> > Are any of the laminated shafts available made of this?
>
> Alaskan Yellow Cedar is much too soft to use entirely for a shaft.
> The surface would never hold up to even average side impact (dings).
> Internally, it works fine.
By "laminated" I meant like CueTecs or some of the other shafts that are
covered with graphite or fiberglass. The ones I know of have maple wood
cores. So I asked if any have the yellow cedar cores.
> > Do you mean laminated or spliced?
> >
> I have experimented with both flat laminations and radial laminations.
> Predator worshipers (which I am beginning to think you, Ron, may be)
Well, no, I don't have one. I'm just looking for a good shooting cue
stick. In some of the text in my post, which you choose to delete in your
reply, I even said that I had reservations about the spliced predator
shafts, and I asked if anyone had, so far, had any problems with the glue
joints.
> note: radial lamination technology has been around forever. Many a
> fishing rod has benefited from such construction.
>
> > I'm interested. Anyone out there doing this yet?
> >
> Apparently I failed to make it clear that I have been doing this for
> years.
Let me get this straight. There are flat laminations (like plywood), and
radial laminations (like Cuetecs), and radial splices (like Predators).
Right?
> > Could you explain exactly what you mean here? Are these forces due to
> > some non-rigid-body property of the shaft, to the finite contact time of
> > the tip on the ball, to the ball rotation during the finite contact time,
> > or what?
> >
> Sorry Ron, the simple illustration (tack hammer, bowling ball…remember?)
> I gave is as lowbrow as I know how to go. If you don’t get the rather
> basic physics involved, I’m sure I don’t have teaching skill to
> enlighten you further.
Sorry, I still don't get the analogy. Perhaps you misunderstood my
question. It was not rhetorical, or facetious, or derogatory; it was an
honest question. I understand various arguments based on all of those
principles (non-rigid body dynamics of the shaft, ball rotation during the
contact time, acoustical echos within the shaft during the contact time),
I just didn't see how the tack hammer fit in.
> > I've shot with a predator and I do not observe any such "magnification" of
> > spin. The spin you get on a ball pretty much comes just from the location
> > of the contact point of the tip on the ball. Players should not expect
> > any kind of superspin with a low-squirt shaft, just low squirt.
> >
> Don’t know where you came up with "magnification", it’s not a word I
> used.
Ok, you used "amplification". But I still did not see any, and I don't
think anyone else should expect to see it either. Maybe some will, others
won't; perceptions can be different. A rounded cue tip may appear to give
more spin than a flat one, but this is because the contact point is
different -- that is, it is a matter of perception.
>But since you seem so sure that the only effect of less squirt
> is, um, less squirt, then tell me, Ron, what do you suppose happens to
> whatever energy would have been expended "squirting" the cueball? All
> other factors being equal (stroke, speed, tip/cueball contact point,
> etc.), how is the mystical force that WOULD have caused squirt from a
> "squirty stick" (the "Anti-predator"?) dissipated?
This gets back to my previous question. What is the nature of this force
that causes squirt?
>In your perfect (and
> might I add, imaginary) world of "just low squirt", what happens to the
> extra energy? Is there a little puff of smoke that I’ve failed to
> notice? Is it just absorbed by the cueball, somehow? But hey, forget
> logic. And don’t take MY word for any of this stuff. After all, what
> do I know? I’ve only been building cues and experimenting with these
> issues for sixteen years or so.
I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this. I assume that you
misunderstood the nature of my original question regarding the force that
causes squirt. When this force accelerates the cue ball over some
distance, then it contributes to the ball's kinetic energy. But if there
is no force, then there is no sideways component of momentum, and no
corresponding piece of the energy.
>And I’ve really only dissected two
> actual Predator shafts in person. By dissected, I mean to say that I
> played, weighed, x-rayed and filleted them. Eventually, I sectioned
> both shafts into two inch pieces for the full length to analyze the
> radial consistency, or lack thereof. But you Ron, you’ve SHOT with
> one. Under the heat of THAT kind of superior study I might wilt, were
> it not for the fact that most of the recent r.s.b. posts gushing with
> joy over the Predator product have supported what I say.
I only reported what I saw. You are welcome to take it with a grain of salt.
>Go review Tarl
> Roger Kudrick’s lengthy post reporting his analysis of the issue. These
> are his words, not mine. Tarl reports "extra power", "more spin", "more
> SPEED" with the same stroke.
He also said that his original shaft felt dead. Who knows? I'll simply
take his word for it that he reported what he saw. As far as I know, he
has no reason to try to mislead me or anyone else here in r.s.b.
>[...] Really, Ron, if you want to debate these issues, put a little
> meat on the bone.
"Debate" isn't the right word. "Understand" is better.
>Explain how the dreaded squirt can just be eliminated
> without any tradeoffs. Give us a little logic, a little science, a
> little song and dance, something, anything. Flak alone doesn’t cut it.
How about if I ask questions? Is that an option?
> > I don't understand how squirt could possibly improve anyone's game,
> > whether they are a top player or a player like me.
>
> I tried my best to be clear, with the limited time I had, but somehow
> you thought I had claimed that squirt could "…improve anyone’s game…".
> Let me make it as clear as I can: THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID. Did you get
> that, Ron?
What you did say was "Every top player has learned to work with and around
it." By "working with" I thought you meant that he/she could use it to
advantage somehow. I don't think that this is true; squirt is bad, and
less is better. Sure the pros can "work around it", they have talent and
they play 10 hours a day, they could probably work around many obstacles.
But I think squirt may be something that neither the pros nor us amateurs
want.
>What I did say is: "Squirt exists". And, it can be reduced
> greatly. I’ve done it plenty. But there are tradeoffs involved. I’m
> sorry if that’s too involved for you to understand, but that’s just how
> it is.
Yes, perhaps it is too involved for me to understand. But I did ask
honest questions about the tradeoffs.
Do we have to use spliced shafts, or are there cue makers out there making
low-squirt shafts that are not spliced?
Do we have to contend with "amplified" spin? (I think not, and I said why.)
> > $.02 -Ron Shepard
> Just one man's opinion, but you might be overcharging a bit here.
Could be! ;-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tarl Roger Kudrick
Ron Shepard (she...@tcg.anl.gov) wrote:
[Thomas Wayne said]
: >Go review Tarl
: > Roger Kudrick’s lengthy post reporting his analysis of the issue. These
: > are his words, not mine. Tarl reports "extra power", "more spin", "more
: > SPEED" with the same stroke.
:
:[Then Ron Shepard]
: He also said that his original shaft felt dead. Who knows? I'll simply
: take his word for it that he reported what he saw. As far as I know, he
: has no reason to try to mislead me or anyone else here in r.s.b.
Since I apparently started this, let's see if I can finish it
without getting anyone else mad at each other.
First, though, I want TW to know that I, for one, sincerely
appreciate his recent contributions to r.s.b.--especially that last one.
As far as I can tell, Mr. Wayne only de-lurked recently, and I'd hate to
have him disappear back into the shadows. There are very few people on
this newsgroup who can talk with total authority on some of the more
complex issues regarding cues, and Mr. Wayne happens to be one of them. So
I hope we don't scare him off!
Okay. Ron, I'm surprised that I find myself going against you on
this one. TW's points about the pros and CONS of shafts that deliver extra
power and RPMs with only a little effort are excellent.
The good points are obvious. The bad points take some thought,
which TW already provided, so I'll just add this:
Even though I love my new Predator shaft, I *would not*--I repeat,
I *would not* recommend a Predator for anyone who has never run a whole
rack of 9-ball or 8-ball at least once. In fact, here's a true story for
you: I never really developed a good stroke until I switched from a
McDermott to a Huebler. (side note: it is spelled h-UE-bler, not "eu"; I
spelled my own cue wrong every single time on my big long "showdown" post.
Sorry Paul H.!)
Anyway:
I played with a McDermott for two years and I was never able to
get the BIG draws and follows I saw other players getting. When I gave up
the game and then came back two years later, I started with a Huebler. All
of a sudden, it was even tougher to draw the ball than before. That's
because my Huebler has a stiff, and IMHO fairly dead, shaft. I had to work
very hard to learn how to get real draw, but when I did, I was able to go
back to a McDermott and get the kind of power draw all the other good
players could get. It wasn't the stick, it was ME.
The difference was, the McD made it fairly easy for me to get SOME
spin. So, I was never forced to learn how to get a LOT of spin. And in the
process I'd never really developed a good stroke. With my Huebler,
learning how to grip a cue very loosely and use my wrist properly wasn't
an option, it was a necessity.
The same thing happened with English. My Huebler shaft is very
clear about what it takes to generate increasing amounts of english--you
have to hit the cue ball noticeably further away from the center. If I
mis-hit slightly, it wasn't a big deal--there would be hardly any increase
or decrease in the amount of english I put on the ball, so the resulting
position error was minimal.
I delayed buying a Predator shaft for a year because I didn't
think my game was ready for it. I didn't really understand how to
compensate for english; I was going entirely by feel and didn't really
know what I was doing. Also, I have a rule: don't buy another cue until
you find yourself facing a real limitation with the one you've got.
Finally, the day came when my Huebler was driving me nuts. It was
too squirty, and that made me rule out certain types of shots which could
have otherwise been very profitable. And, I was trying (and failing) to
develop truly fine english control. Tiny differences in where I struck the
ball had little or no effect.
So I bought a Predator shaft. Within a week I had finer english
control than I have EVER had. Table-length cut shots with significant
english used to be so hard to make, I only had one amount of english I
could put on the ball if I wanted to feel good about making the shot. I
astonished myself the other day by making these shots with very little
effort, and getting EXACTLY the kind of spin I wanted.
But, like I said. Unless you are very confident of your ability to
hit the ball exactly where you want to, you're better off with a cue
(shaft) that gives you room to make mistakes. Beginners should NOT start
with a Predator.
--Tarl Roger Kudrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|ta...@access.digex.net
"You get what you settle for." |
Thelma, in "Thelma and Louise" |I don't speak for my company. People
|who visit me can speak for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-skala a.
This has got to be the quote of the year! ROFL!
>Sorry Ron, the simple illustration (tack hammer, bowling ball…remember?)
>I gave is as lowbrow as I know how to go. If you don’t get the rather
>basic physics involved, I’m sure I don’t have teaching skill to
>enlighten you further.
[Thomas Wayne responding to Ron Shepard's query of physics explanation of
why less squirt would amplify spin].
Mark S.
Jeffrey Weiss
ta...@access2.digex.net (Tarl Roger Kudrick):
> My Huebler shaft is very clear about what it takes to generate increasing
> amounts of english--you have to hit the cue ball noticeably further away from
> the center. If I mis-hit slightly, it wasn't a big deal--there would be
> hardly any increase or decrease in the amount of english I put on the ball,
> so the resulting position error was minimal.
> Finally, the day came when my Huebler was driving me nuts....I was trying
> (and failing) to develop truly fine english control. Tiny differences in
> where I struck the ball had little or no effect.
First off, I (like Ron) find it hard to not be skeptical about these
observations that would indicate shaft characteristcs playing an important role
in the amount of spin generated for a given off-center displacement. However,
I don't have a Predator, so I'll accept your observations for the time being.
(BTW, thanks for taking the time to post your observations.)
Given what you've said, however, I'm a little confused about one thing. If I
read correctly, you're saying that the Huebler offers a smaller "dynamic range"
of spin than the Predator. As a result, the Predator gives you a greater range
of options (you can get more spin at the extreme than you can with the
Huebler). The flip side to this wouold be that the Huebler is more "forgiving"
in that for a given error in actual vs. attempted displacement, the effect on
spin produced is lower. Thus, I would characterize the Huebler as giving
"finer" *control*. (Seems to me that "control" has to do with accuracy.)
By wanting to "develop truly fine english control", do you mean that you were
seeking a greater range of possible spin amounts? And, further, that you can
master this greater range *because* as an improved player, your stroke has
increased in accuracy to the point that you have good control over exactly
where on the cueball you hit?
--
jw
Tarl Roger Kudrick
Jeffrey Weiss (jeffre...@gs.com) wrote:
: First off, I (like Ron) find it hard to not be skeptical about these
: observations that would indicate shaft characteristcs playing an important role
: in the amount of spin generated for a given off-center displacement. However,
I was skeptical too. Very. Then I played with one. Try
one--especially on slow, dead cloth. That's where you'll see the biggest
difference. (Although, if you already have a good shaft, there may not be
as big a difference for you as there was for me.)
: Huebler). The flip side to this wouold be that the Huebler is more
:"forgiving" in that for a given error in actual vs. attempted
: displacement, the effect on spin produced is lower. Thus, I would
: characterize the Huebler as giving "finer" *control*. (Seems to me
: that "control" has to do with accuracy.)
Okay, that just shows how hard it is to communicate
sometimes--equally intelligent people can see things differently. I would
say the Huebler has LESS fine english control because tiny differences in
where you strike the cue ball don't seem to do anything. Only noticeable
differences mattered. This meant that instead of a nice, gradual range of
possible sidespins, I had to choose from several discrete amounts.
: By wanting to "develop truly fine english control", do you mean that you were
: seeking a greater range of possible spin amounts? And, further, that you can
: master this greater range *because* as an improved player, your stroke has
: increased in accuracy to the point that you have good control over exactly
: where on the cueball you hit?
Yes, exactly, to both questions. And again I feel I should point
out that if you DON'T have the ability to pretty much hit the cue ball
exactly where you want to, you should stay away from the Predator. I can
imagine beginners saying "I hit the same shot five times and got five
different results!" They may THINK they hit the same shot five times, but
cue balls don't lie. However, no beginner can be expected to have any real
fine control over where they strike the cue ball.
In a worst-case scenario, I can imagine a beginner teaching
him/herself to play with Byrne's book and a Predator, and eventually
coming to the conclusion that there's no way to predict how much spin you
get when you hit the cue ball a certain way. This will happen to some
degree with any cue, of course, because non-players don't know how to
stroke straight, but the problem will be made worse by a cue that is very
sensitive to slight differences in where you hit the cue ball.
Ron Shepard
In article <5dgb96$6...@news4.digex.net>, ta...@access1.digex.net (Tarl
Roger Kudrick) wrote:
> Jeffrey Weiss (jeffre...@gs.com) wrote:
>
> : First off, I (like Ron) find it hard to not be skeptical about these
> : observations that would indicate shaft characteristcs playing an
important role
> : in the amount of spin generated for a given off-center displacement.
However,
>
> I was skeptical too. Very. Then I played with one. Try
> one--especially on slow, dead cloth. That's where you'll see the biggest
> difference. (Although, if you already have a good shaft, there may not be
> as big a difference for you as there was for me.)
As I posted before, I have played with a Predator and I did not see any
"superspin" effects. I did see less squirt -- a 50" pivot point, which is
pretty good. Have any other predator owners tested their cues/shafts? Do
they all perform this well?
I'm curious about the effect you see with the Huebler. What you are
describing with the Predator sounds "normal" to me (namely, the more
displacement from center, the more spin you see). Exactly what happens
when you try to get maximum draw with the Huebler shaft? Does it miscue
for the same displacement that the Predator is successful? Or are you
saying that you hit the same distance from center, but it acts like you
hit in the center of the cue ball? Are you judging the offset by the
shaft offset (and if so, do both the shafts have the same diameter)? Have
you looked at the chalk spots to see if you are really hitting where you
think you are? Can you borrow some Elephant practice balls to see if you
are hitting where you think you are hitting? Are the tip curvatures
roughly the same for the Huebler and the Predator? How do the two shafts
compare in the Draw Shot test?
Judging from your (Tarl's) EO scores, for example, you are not a beginner,
so I have no reason to think that you are drastically misjudging the
contact point. But the above is a list of things that might affect one's
perception of the contact point. The behavior you describe for the
Predator sounds normal to me. Not just for my stick (which is also a
Huebler, by the way :-), but for lots of sticks that I have tested in the
past few months. I usually do both the Squirt Test and the Draw Shot test
with these cues, so I would see a "superspin" effect if it were there. It
is really the Huebler results that sound unusual.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Bill Stroud
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read thse posts about squirt
and Predator shafts.
Can any of you people play pool?
If you could, you would realize that making an object ball is not really
the point. You can make all the balls you need to with almost any cue.
The important thing is control over the cueball. That is where the
Predator, the Meucci, and other flexible cues fail. You don't want to
put more draw on the cueball. You want more control over your position.
A stiff shaft gives you that control. A flexible shaft does not.
I can guarantee you one thing. If Predator shafts or anything else gave
you better control of the cueball, every professional including myself,
would be playing with it.
What Predator really has is a great marketing gimic.
--
Bill Stroud--------"Art is the lie that tells the Truth".-----------
Ron Shepard
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read thse posts about squirt
> and Predator shafts.
>
> Can any of you people play pool?
Sometimes you wonder. One person reports about how stiff a shaft is, and
another posts that it is flexible; one person reports that he gets
amplified spin, another says that nothing unusual happens. There are a
few pros here in r.s.b., but they don't post often during the season. For
the rest of us, yeah we play, but if you look at our IEO scores over the
last few years you will see that the pros have little reason for their
knees to tremble when we enter the room. :-)
> If you could, you would realize that making an object ball is not really
> the point. You can make all the balls you need to with almost any cue.
> The important thing is control over the cueball. That is where the
> Predator, the Meucci, and other flexible cues fail. You don't want to
> put more draw on the cueball. You want more control over your position.
> A stiff shaft gives you that control. A flexible shaft does not.
Is there a good way to quantitatively measure this tradeoff between shaft
stiffness and cue ball control? I agree that the goal is maximum control
of speed and spin, not maximum speed and spin. However, apart from
missing shots because of squirt differences between cues, I play about the
same with flexible and stiff shafts. If you know of a particular shot
setup that can be used to measure some performance difference between
stiff and flexible shafts then I would like to know it. I would
incorporate it into my testing procedure, which now includes the Squirt
test and the Draw Shot test.
One reason that squirt gets discussed as much as it does is because there
is an objective quantitative way to measure it.
> I can guarantee you one thing. If Predator shafts or anything else gave
> you better control of the cueball, every professional including myself,
> would be playing with it.
Do you believe that it is possible to have a stiff shaft with minimal squirt?
And speaking of pros, are any of them playing with Predator shafts? I do
know that many of them are now playing with Meucci's, but I expect that
this is as much a sponsorship issue as anything else.
> What Predator really has is a great marketing gimic.
I think it still remains to be seen whether it is just a gimic, just
marketing, or even if it is great. That's the reason for these posts,
right? :-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
twc
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:30:07 -0600, she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard)
wrote:
>> Ron Shepard wrote:
>By "laminated" I meant like CueTecs or some of the other shafts that are
>covered with graphite or fiberglass. The ones I know of have maple wood
>cores. So I asked if any have the yellow cedar cores.
Ron,
At what point did CUETEC enter the discussion? The Cuetec
construction is a wood core with a fiber reinforced plastic WRAP. My
explanatory post was about Predator shafts and their construction.
Where in the world did you get Cuetec?
> Do you mean laminated or spliced?
"Spliced" is not a word I use to describe the Predator shaft
construction, nor am I aware of any cuemaker who does (and I know a
lot of cuemakers, Ron)
> In some of the text in my post, which you choose to delete in your
>reply
As did you when quoting my original post. I believe it is common
practice to include partial quotations, thereby saving space. I
certainly did not omit any of your reply that was relevant to MY
response.
>Let me get this straight. There are flat laminations (like plywood), and
>radial laminations (like Cuetecs), and radial splices (like Predators).
>Right?
Do you really want to get anything straight, Ron? Or do you just want
to push your own terminology ("radial laminations = Cuetec) down other
people’s throats. My understanding of the Cuetec manufacturing
process is that of a "fiberglass wrap" or "glass wrap", the terms used
for snow skis, water skis, golf shafts, tennis racquets, racquetball
racquets, and just about any other thing on the face of God’s green
earth that is wrapped with fiberglass. But terminology aside, Ron,
does Predator "radial laminate" fiberglass around any of their
products that you are aware of? We WERE talking about Predator
shafts, weren’t we?
>Sorry, I still don't get the analogy. Perhaps you misunderstood my
>question. It was not rhetorical, or facetious, or derogatory; it was an
>honest question. I understand various arguments based on all of those
>principles (non-rigid body dynamics of the shaft, ball rotation during the
>contact time, acoustical echos within the shaft during the contact time),
>I just didn't see how the tack hammer fit in.
Oh believe me, Ron, I understood your question just fine. The problem
is, most average, normal, English-speaking people would not. And
you’re right; by itself the "tack hammer" doesn’t fit in. But I
didn’t depict the tack hammer by itself. I had the tack hammer
striking a bowling ball. And I contrasted that action with a sledge
hammer striking a tennis ball. It was a package deal. No
substitutions.
You see Ron, when a person is lucky enough to be blessed with higher
knowledge (in any arena) he really can only do one of two things with
that knowledge (apart from using it for his own purposes, of course).
He can hide it away and hoard it like some sort of secret fortune, or
he can share it with the world. I’m sure anyone who has read many of
your r.s.b. posts will agree that you are clearly an intelligent and
educated person. THAT point has been well made. But, when you
attempt "share" your knowledge with postings that include:
> "….the natural roll velocity of the cue ball after the collision is determined by >V_nr=(2/7)*R*omega_0 where omega_0 is the spin velocity immediately after the >collision. Note that V_nr does not depend on the ball-cloth friction coefficient…"
I think you may tend to lose most of your audience just a bit. And
when you say things like:
> "However the time required to achieve this natural roll condition is determined by >t_nr=-(2/7)*R*omega_0/mu_sliding
>where mu_sliding is the sliding coefficient of friction…"
I have to imagine that most of your would-be readers roll their eyes
and surf on to the next post in a row. I don’t think you realize,
Ron, that most readers want to UNDERSTAND what they read. They want
to be able to close their eyes and ‘get it’ easily. Complicated (for
them) physics equations and techno-babble just tend to turn most
people off. "Tack hammers and bowling balls" they get. "Tennis balls
and sledge hammers" they can visualize. You do want that, don’t you
Ron? You do want them to get it, don’t you? I mean, Heaven help us
if you only post formulas and engineering terms to continually impress
us with your education! Please say it’s not just about that.
Unfamiliar terminology and complex equations can mask the truth and
destroy the thirst for knowledge so easily. And thirst for knowledge
is such a fragile thing, much like the flame of an unsheltered candle,
so easily snuffed out by the slightest puff of air (especially hot
air). Ron, if you really have insights and answers to offer, don’t
squirrel them away inside some "foreign" language. Tell us what you
know. But say it so we can get it.
>Ok, you used "amplification". But I still did not see any, and I don't
>think anyone else should expect to see it either. Maybe some will, others
>won't; perceptions can be different. A rounded cue tip may appear to give
>more spin than a flat one, but this is because the contact point is
>different -- that is, it is a matter of perception.
Just curious, Ron, but why is it that when other people make measured
observations, it's just "a matter of perception". In other words,
they only perceive a difference. I ask this because I noticed that
you don’t "perceive" things, you "observe" them. Could any of the
authoritative statements you make really just turn out to be "a matter
of perception"? Is that possible?
>This gets back to my previous question. What is the nature of this force
>that causes squirt?
Actually, Ron, the "nature" of this force is somewhat irrelevant
(IMHO). What IS relevant is the fact that SOME sort of force is
responsible for squirt (zero-squirt fans would probably say the NATURE
of this force is "Evil" J). Since we seem to agree that there IS a
force that causes squirt, then I think it is clearly seen that the
amount of this force can be determined by the simple equation:
X_n/V*R(11/37)=A/b*2r where X is the numerical constant
representing the spherical intollerence of the cueball and V is the
velocity…..
Okay, okay I was just kidding here. Seemed like a good time to
lighten up a bit (thereby avoiding the dreaded CFSLU).
But we do seem to agree that there is a force at work when squirt
occurs. And of course, that force must be comprised of some form of
energy. So MY question to you, Ron, is: Where does that force go when
there is no squirt. If two shots are identical in all aspects
(speed, stroke, amount of english,tip shape, etc.) and the ONLY
variable between the two shots is that one is executed with a
"squirty" shaft, and the other is executed with a "low-squirt" shaft,
then where does that force (energy) go? I contend that it is
dissipated amongst all the other effects of hitting the ball with the
cue. Spin and speed are enhanced proportionally to the amount
applied. Do you have another answer? I understand that you insist
that low squirt results in "just low squirt", but can you explain to
us how that is so? In English?
>I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this. I assume that you
>misunderstood the nature of my original question regarding the force that
>causes squirt.
No, Ron, I didn’t misunderstand the nature of your original question.
But as I just said, the NATURE of the force is irrelevant. However,
since it seems so important to you, lets discuss it. I noticed that
the Pool & Billiard FAQ, in its glossary of terms, defines squirt and
states that "No one understands exactly why this happens". Wanna bet?
I’ll let you in on a little something here, Ron, but you have to be
willing to visualize what I’m saying. It’s gonna be another one of
those "tack hammer" things, so you’ll need to work with me here. If
you don’t get it, well, I’ll understand.
Imagine the cueball striking an object ball on about a half-ball cut.
In a physically perfect world, the object ball will speed smartly away
at about a 30 degree angle (put away your slide-rule Ron, this is an
illustration, not a formula). That’s what happens in a perfect world.
But in my basement, and most pool halls around the world, it's not so
cut and dried. The balls may be a little dirty - or a lot dirty.
Because there is friction between the balls, which is enhanced by the
dirt, the cueball will tend to pull the object ball along it's
[cueball] original line of travel. The overwhelming effect of this
interaction is the sideways motion of the object ball, but there is a
secondary effect caused by the friction between the balls. This is
called "throw" or "cling". If there was no friction between the
balls, it wouldn’t happen. Now try to visualize, for just a minute,
that the sideways movement of the object ball is a form of squirt. If
the cueball were replaced with the chalked leather tip of a cuestick
striking the object ball instead, any sideways movement at the moment
of contact would be "squirt". And any movement along the line of cue
travel would represent the "cling". If you want lots of squirt, shoot
with a cue that has a cast resin hemi-spherical tip roughly 2 ¼ inches
in diameter with no chalk on it. Oh yeah, it should be heavy, too, say
5 to 6 ounces just for the tip alone. You won’t get much "cling", but
just look at that squirt. On the other hand, if you want little or no
squirt, use a tip that is really small, say 13mm or so. And guess
what? You might also want it to have very low mass. Chalk it well.
You’ll get lots of "cling" and little squirt. Change any factor and
the squirt goes up. Don’t chalk the tip = more squirt. Tip-heavy
shaft = more squirt. Big tip = more squirt. How much each of these
contributes to squirt may vary for each individual (offer void where
prohibited), but they do matter. Squirt happens because the major
direction of energy (stroke path of the cuestick) is not aligned with
the center of mass of the cueball. The necessarily angular manner of
contact causes a sideways motion of the cueball which can be
exaggerated or diminished by controlling the mass of the cue-tip.
It’s the same reason a tennis ball hit with top-spin (with a racquet,
not a sledge hammer) will leave the racquet face with a lower
trajectory, while a back-spin shot leaves with a higher trajectory.
After contact, aerodynamic forces enter into the picture, but
immediately following impact the effect has already begun (just like
cueball squirt).
>I only reported what I saw. You are welcome to take it with a grain of salt.
C’mon, Ron; didn’t you really only report what you PERCEIVED? Won’t
you at least allow for the POSSIBILITY that you might not be 100%
right? Hey, I’ll tell you what: I’ll take what you say "with a grain
of salt" if you’ll serve it with a little dash of humble.
>"Debate" isn't the right word. "Understand" is better.
>How about if I ask questions? Is that an option?
I don’t know, Ron, maybe be "debate" isn’t correct, but "understand"
is just plain silly. "Dispute" is probably right on the money:
TW: "…Predator fans have praised the small amount of english required
to achieve dramatic results…" "…any cue that enhances and amplifies
good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify BAD execution."
RS: "Players should not expect any kind of super-spin with a
low-squirt shaft, just low squirt. In my experience, there is no
amplification of either good spin or bad spin. I think that the only
thing that is ‘amplified’ are the errors with a squirty stick – the
smaller the squirt, the smaller these errors."
Ron, if you want to dispute or debate (or "understand", as you call
it) what I present, that is your right. I would just like to see a
little steak with the sizzle. You’ve stated a position directly
opposed to mine, now lets hear your data, your theories, your
explanations, your analogies. I've presented mine. It’s your turn.
>What you did say was "Every top player has learned to work with and around
>it." By "working with" I thought you meant that he/she could use it to
>advantage somehow. I don't think that this is true; squirt is bad, and
>less is better. Sure the pros can "work around it", they have talent and
>they play 10 hours a day, they could probably work around many obstacles.
>But I think squirt may be something that neither the pros nor us amateurs
>want.
Semantics. But I’m curious here. You seem to be saying that the
pros, because of their talent and 10 hour practice days, don’t need
the "advantage" offered by low-squirt shafts. That they have made the
conscious decision to pound away for 10 hours each day rather than pop
for a Predator. Is this your position?
>Yes, perhaps it is too involved for me to understand. But I did ask
>honest questions about the tradeoffs.
No, you didn’t, Ron. You absolutely did NOT ask any "honest
questions" about the tradeoffs. You did proclaim that there WEREN’T
any tradeoffs, but you didn’t ask any questions, honest or otherwise,
about them.
>Do we have to use spliced shafts, or are there cue makers out there making
>low-squirt shafts that are not spliced?
To my knowledge, there is no law or requirement compelling you to use
any particular type of shaft. As far as cuemakers go, there are many,
many cuemakers (self included) who will be happy to make exactly what
you want in the way of a shaft. Of course, that presupposes that you
know what exactly it is that you want.
>Do we have to contend with "amplified" spin? (I think not, and I said why.)
Of course not. In fact, you don’t HAVE to contend with anything at
all. You could even take up Ping-Pong (another great American
wrist-sport). But I gotta tell ya, Ron, if you "said WHY", I sure
missed it.
TW
(PS: Tarl Roger Kudrick recently posted that he didn’t want anyone
else getting "mad at each other" over this issue. Why not, Tarl?
Don’t you remember all of those greatly entertaining
"Point/Counterpoint" segments on ‘60 Minutes’? People love a good
scrap, hence the popularity of hockey. Maybe we could call this
r.s.b. version: "Pointy-head/Counterpointy-head?)
-"...Then the elders cried out, saying: 'How will we know he has
arrived?'
And he answered unto them: 'When True Genius appears before you,
you may know him by this sign: that all the idiots amongst you are
aligned against him.'..."
[excerpt from *BEHIND THE SEVENTH SUN OF THE LAST PLANET IN THE
BELTWAY OF GIORK* - an unwritten, unpublished, nonexistent
semi-biographical novel by Thomas Wayne; some rights reserved]
Jim Meador
Thank you Bill! I couldn't agree more. Please give me one of your cues.
Jim Meador
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read thse posts about squirt
> and Predator shafts.
>
> Can any of you people play pool?
>
> If you could, you would realize that making an object ball is not really
> the point. You can make all the balls you need to with almost any cue.
> The important thing is control over the cueball. That is where the
> Predator, the Meucci, and other flexible cues fail. You don't want to
> put more draw on the cueball. You want more control over your position.
> A stiff shaft gives you that control. A flexible shaft does not.
>
> I can guarantee you one thing. If Predator shafts or anything else gave
> you better control of the cueball, every professional including myself,
> would be playing with it.
>
> What Predator really has is a great marketing gimic.
>
bill stroud
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> Do you believe that it is possible to have a stiff shaft with minimal squirt?
>
I really don't know the answer yet, but I suspect it is no.
The real question is "What difference does it make to the player?"
On of the main things thats sets the better player apart from the rest,
is the ability to adjust to the playing conditions. The table, the
cueball, the felt, the enviroment, the people watching, and yes, even
the squirt of the cue.
When I was hustling with Eddie Taylor, about a million years ago, I
constantly marveled at his ability to play with any cue, in any
condition,in any situation, and never miss a ball. No complaints about
the cue, the table, the conditions or anything else. Just run out pool.
He could adjust faster than anyone I have ever seen.
While I don't think the better player is concerned about squirt, I do
believe he should be very concerned about the flexibility of his cue.
A good example is the following incident.
Perhaps ten or even fifteen years ago, I was playing in a tournament
that Mike Sigel was also in.
He had just started working for Meucci and was playing with one of their
cues. About half way through the tournament, he said " Billy, hit a few
balls with this cue". I did. I set up a simple shot and drew the cueball
6" or so. I set up the same shot, and using the same speed of stroke,
shot the ball in again, and guess what?, the cueball drew almost 2 feet!
Mike said, "That's exactly what happens to me, I can never get the
cueball to go exactly where I want it".
He quit Meucci the next week, and went back to work for Danny at Joss
Cues.
Moral? The good player is not concerned with squirt and whether or not
he can pocket any ball, but he is very concerned with control of the
cueball.
It's nice that you can quantify squirt, but who cares?
If you can't make a ball with squirt, you won't make any more without
it.
Pool, like much of life is about control.
--
bill stroud
Ron Shepard
> On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:30:07 -0600, she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard)
> wrote:
>
> >> Ron Shepard wrote:
> >By "laminated" I meant like CueTecs or some of the other shafts that are
> >covered with graphite or fiberglass. The ones I know of have maple wood
> >cores. So I asked if any have the yellow cedar cores.
>
> At what point did CUETEC enter the discussion? The Cuetec
> construction is a wood core with a fiber reinforced plastic WRAP. My
> explanatory post was about Predator shafts and their construction.
> Where in the world did you get Cuetec?
This was an example of what I meant when I said "laminated". You
discussed the weight and strength advantages of yellow cedar over maple,
and mentioned the disadvantage that it doesn't hold up as well to dings.
So then I asked if you or any other cue makers were using yellow cedar
with laminated (ala CueTec or Eliminator) shafts? Perhaps "wrapped" is a
better description, but I explained as clearly as I could what I meant.
Since this is the third time I've asked this question, and no one has
admitted to trying this, I assume that no one is producing or selling such
a shaft.
> > Do you mean laminated or spliced?
>
> "Spliced" is not a word I use to describe the Predator shaft
> construction, nor am I aware of any cuemaker who does (and I know a
> lot of cuemakers, Ron)
In the Feb-97 issue of Billiards Digest (for one example) there is a
Predator ad on page 93. Along with the marketing hype, there is "The
secret behind the incredible performance of a 314 shaft is its radially
spliced 10-piece design and specially engineered end-section insert."
Also on page 364 of the Blue Book is "Allan had experimented with spliced
shafts in the past...". I also remember reading several references to
spliced shafts in the Billiards Encyclopedia. Although you do not use
this term, I think it is not uncommon.
> > In some of the text in my post, which you choose to delete in your
> >reply
>
> As did you when quoting my original post. I believe it is common
> practice to include partial quotations, thereby saving space. I
> certainly did not omit any of your reply that was relevant to MY
> response.
But in this case, the text that you chose to delete answered the question
that you asked. I agree that text, expecially in long articles in threads
like this one, should be edited down for brevity.
[...]
> Oh believe me, Ron, I understood your question just fine. The problem
> is, most average, normal, English-speaking people would not.
Hey, I do my best.
>[...] But, when you
> attempt "share" your knowledge with postings that include:
> > "….the natural roll velocity of the cue ball after the collision is
> > determined by >V_nr=(2/7)*R*omega_0 where omega_0 is the spin velocity
> > immediately after the >collision. Note that V_nr does not depend on the
> > ball-cloth friction coefficient…"
>
> I think you may tend to lose most of your audience just a bit. And
> when you say things like:
> > "However the time required to achieve this natural roll condition is
> >determined by >t_nr=-(2/7)*R*omega_0/mu_sliding
> >where mu_sliding is the sliding coefficient of friction…"
>
> I have to imagine that most of your would-be readers roll their eyes
> and surf on to the next post in a row.
I do attempt to share what little I know about this game. APAPP is free,
online, and I make no effort to profit by it. The above equations are not
in APAPP, but the relevant background is. So in the response to a
specific question about physics, I gave these equations along with
specific page number references to APAPP. Mathematics is the language of
physics, although in the above post I tried to explain in words also what
the conclusions meant (as I try to do in APAPP). Some readers will skip
over these posts entirely, others will read them and note the useful
conclusions and stop there, and still others will go on to look up the
details in APAPP, in Marlow's book, or in other reference text. It is
perhaps not unlikely that many readers have begun to skip over this post.
:-) It is simply a matter of information content and effort.
Also, I think it is a mistake to underestimate the intelligence of the
r.s.b. readers. There are everything from high-energy physicists to
nuclear engineers to computer hardware and software professionals in
here. I believe that anyone who is _interested_ can follow and enjoy
APAPP, it is not limited to physics experts, and indeed, I could not have
written it if it were since I am not a physics expert myself.
>[...] Tell us what you
> know. But say it so we can get it.
I do my best.
> >Ok, you used "amplification". But I still did not see any, and I don't
> >think anyone else should expect to see it either. Maybe some will, others
> >won't; perceptions can be different. A rounded cue tip may appear to give
> >more spin than a flat one, but this is because the contact point is
> >different -- that is, it is a matter of perception.
>
> Just curious, Ron, but why is it that when other people make measured
> observations, it's just "a matter of perception". In other words,
> they only perceive a difference. I ask this because I noticed that
> you don’t "perceive" things, you "observe" them. Could any of the
> authoritative statements you make really just turn out to be "a matter
> of perception"? Is that possible?
Of course it is possible, perhaps even likely, that my observations are
biased. As I've posted before in this thread, I usually do both the
Squirt test and the Draw Shot test when I evaluate cue sticks. Both of
these lead to quantitative, objective, measures of squirt and maximum draw
respectively. Both tests have been posted and discussed here in r.s.b
many times, so others know how to repeat my experiments if they choose to
do so. They don't have to simply take my word for it.
> >This gets back to my previous question. What is the nature of this force
> >that causes squirt?
>
> Actually, Ron, the "nature" of this force is somewhat irrelevant
> (IMHO).
Perhaps, perhaps not. I would like to understand it in any case.
[...]
> But we do seem to agree that there is a force at work when squirt
> occurs.
Of course, and when squirt is less, that force must have been less, or it
acted for a shorter time, or it was aligned in a different direction. I
would like to understand which of these possibilities, and maybe there are
others, makes the difference in a low-squirt stick and a high-squirt
stick.
>And of course, that force must be comprised of some form of
> energy.
Some forces are indeed related to energy fields, or more specifically the
gradient of the energy field, F=-dU/dx. Electrostatic, gravitational,
and spring constant forces are examples. But other forces don't work this
way, such as sliding frictional forces.
>So MY question to you, Ron, is: Where does that force go when
> there is no squirt. If two shots are identical in all aspects
> (speed, stroke, amount of english,tip shape, etc.) and the ONLY
> variable between the two shots is that one is executed with a
> "squirty" shaft, and the other is executed with a "low-squirt" shaft,
> then where does that force (energy) go?
Here's _my_ attempt at an analogy to explain this. :-) Say you drive a
car from one place to another, point A to point B, in some round-about
path, perhaps up and down a bunch of hills, and you note at the end that
you used 2 gallons of gas (chemical energy). Then later you drive from
point A to point B along a straight highway with no hills, and you only
use 1 gallon of gas. Asking "where does that force go" is like asking how
can you possibly have that extra gallon of gas left in your car, when you
have already determined that the trip requires 2 gallons.
With the low-squirt cue stick, it is perhaps not that the force exists and
is somehow balanced with another force that eliminates squirt, but rather
that the force causing squirt to occur has been reduced, or even
eliminated.
Asking where the force comes from (my question) is a different facet of
asking where the force goes (your question). If we understood the nature
of this force, then we would both know the answer to our questions.
[...]
> since it seems so important to you, lets discuss it. I noticed that
> the Pool & Billiard FAQ, in its glossary of terms, defines squirt and
> states that "No one understands exactly why this happens". Wanna bet?
Perhaps the statement requires some editorial license, but I largely agree
with it. It does not say that many people have not put forward various
hypotheses that explain squirt; they certainly have. The problem is that
not all trends seem to be explained by these various theories, and as was
pointed out recently in a different thread, no one has come up with an
equation what would predict the squirt characteristics of a stick or allow
a low-squirt to be designed based on this equation.
[squirt hypothesis deleted...]
This description of squirt is very similar to that given by Koehler in his
"Science of Pocket Billiards" book. It tries to draw an analogy between a
tip-ball interaction and a ball-ball interaction. IMHO, the problem with
this is that the tip-ball interaction is controlled by static friction,
while the ball-ball interaction is controlled by sliding friction. These
are qualitatively different interactions, it is not simply a matter of the
sizes of coefficients that makes these different.
Here is another attempt at analogy to explain the difference. Suppose you
are in a car that is stuck in a ditch. If the wheel is not sliding, then
you can push on the gas pedal, apply more force to the tire-dirt
interface, and eventually the tire will lift the car from the hole and you
are on your way. But the sliding situation is different. If the wheel is
sliding, then it doesn't matter how far you push the gas pedal, or how
fast the tire spins, there is (essentially) the same force applied toward
lifting the car, and that force is not enough to lift it from the hole.
The actual differences for the tip-ball and ball-ball situation are
discussed in APAPP, Marlow's book, and probably many other technical
references.
[...]
> No, you didn’t, Ron. You absolutely did NOT ask any "honest
> questions" about the tradeoffs. You did proclaim that there WEREN’T
> any tradeoffs, but you didn’t ask any questions, honest or otherwise,
> about them.
I did ask questions about whether a spliced shaft was necessary to
minimize squirt, whether laminated (or wrapped) shafts of yellow cedar
were available, about the details of the "superspin" observation, and
about the durability of the spliced predator shafts. These all involve
possible tradeoffs of various kinds. And I asked these questions
honestly, not facetiously, so these were "honest questions".
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tarl Roger Kudrick
Bill Stroud (bi...@jw.cues.com) wrote:
: If you could, you would realize that making an object ball is not really
: the point. You can make all the balls you need to with almost any cue.
: The important thing is control over the cueball. That is where the
: Predator, the Meucci, and other flexible cues fail. You don't want to
: put more draw on the cueball. You want more control over your position.
: A stiff shaft gives you that control. A flexible shaft does not.
Aw, c'mon, Bill, give us some credit. Okay, I'm not a pro and you
could probably beat me rather easily too. But the fact is, my cue ball
control HAS gone up, especially with regard to English, since getting used
to my Predator shaft. Mainly because, unlike my previous stiff and dead
shaft, I don't have to go to the outside edge of the ball every time I
want to get spin.
A slight increase in speed of stroke results in a slight increase
in spin, and a larger increase in stroke speed results in a larger amount
of spin. That's a lot better than what I had with the Huebler shaft.
You can't compare a Meucci shaft to the Predator's. Meuccis play
like they're made of spaghetti. My Predator feels like a stiff shaft even
though, when you look at what it's actually doing, it's obviously flexing
quite a bit.
Remember back when we had that thread over whether Predators were
stiff or flexible? I couldn't understand how anyone could get confused
over something that basic until I put in some serious time with my own.
They FEEL stiff, but they bend in the front of the shaft. Meuccis feel
like they're made of rubber.
And some pros do use Predators, but that's a bad argument anyway.
Everyone knows pros play with whatever they can get paid to play with. You
don't really think Strickland thinks CueTecs are the best cues in the
world, do you?
I really hate to sound like I've suddenly become the PR guy for
Clawson Cues. I'd be willing to bet that a talented cue maker like you (or
Thomas Wayne or, probably, plenty of others) could make a cue that has
just as little squirt as the Predator by using that technique T. Wayne
discussed earlier in the thread. And it would probably be a better cue,
too, because it wouldn't be mass-produced. And I'd order one from you
except it would be way out of my price range--probably by a factor of
ten--so there's no point.
Predator shafts aren't some magic wand, and by themselves they're
not going to make you a better player (although I'd argue they'll let you
play with less effort, which might cut down on mistakes). You can't BUY a
good game. But they're more than just a marketing gimmick.
Kelly Peterson
bill stroud <joss...@eden.com> wrote:
>Ron Shepard wrote:
>>
>> Do you believe that it is possible to have a stiff shaft with minimal squirt?
>>
I just had some non-player friends read your question. They got a
kick out of it. Think about what your asking.
Kelly
Frank Glenn
Now I'm just a country boy, and I don't have any kind of degree in
anything but hard knocks. I took my barlow (that's a knife) and cut
out a very long conversation between Tom and Ron. I found it very
interesting, by the way. Anyway, can squirt be caused by the fact
that the cuetip is round, and the cueball is round, and you are
hitting the cueball off center (see, Tom, I am paying attention) and
the cueball sort of 'rolls' a little around the tip before it leaves
on its 'new' path? (that was a question, you can tell by the?). This
may be an oversimplification (I may not have spelled that word
correctly, but we have already established that I'm uneducated), but
it makes sense to me. Friction (cling) would have a big play on this.
Some of this force is absorbed by the deformation of the tip, so tip
hardness may play a major role in this squirt thing. I use shafts
with a 13.27MM triangle (that's a brand name, not a shape) tip. The
shafts are NOT a pro taper. They may be exponential (whatever that
means, I never have figgured out where that little e comes from, but
it keeps popping up in 'natural' math functions). Basically the taper
changes a few thousands every 1.5 to 2 inches from the joint to the
tip. Some are maple, and some are an exotic wood (purpleheart, but we
don't want to open that box up again). The exotic wood (very stiff)
shafts have very little deflection, and show very little if any
squirt. The aim and pivot test point is up past the joint. The maple
shafts show less deflection, and less squirt than say,a Mecci with a
pro taper (I have a 95-1 sneaky pete), but more than the exotic. I
have linnen based ferrules on one cue and Ivory on the other, with
one each maple, and PH (that's a total of 2 cues, 4 shafts). Now to
explain my terms:
deflection-how much the shaft bends when it hits the cueball
squirt-divergence of the cueball from the intended path
I don't know if all this really means anything or not, but, I thought
I would throw it in for thought 8-)ż
--
Frank Glenn in Va. (gle...@mnsinc.com)
The more knowledge we possess of the opposite point of view,
the less puzzling it is to know what to do.
- Winston Churchill
Henry K. Miller
Kelly Peterson <bay...@popalex1.linknet.net> wrote in article
<287cd$1617f.29e@NEWS>...
Finally! At last this thread has been brought to a level that (with or
without formulas) I can fully understand. :-)
Hank
==============
--
Henry K. Miller
Chesapeake Cues, Ltd.
International Brokers of Fine Cues
(410) 581-7341
Fax: (410) 363-6362
http://www.wwcollectibles.com/rare/cue/index.html
http://www.cuemaster.com/gallery/showcase.htm
SnookerUSA
#>Ron Shepard wrote:
#>>
#>> Do you believe that it is possible to have a stiff shaft with minimal
squirt?
#>>
#I just had some non-player friends read your question. They got a
#kick out of it. Think about what your asking.
#Kelly
R O T F L M A O.......... sorry Ron, but you stepped right into that
one........... LOL
-- - - - -=== = = Mark.
Regards,
Mark Kulaga
########################################
Vice President
The United States Snooker Association
http://www.assemblylineproducts.com/ussa.html
Naperville, IL
########################################
Thomas Wayne
Ron Shepard wrote:
>
>
> Here's _my_ attempt at an analogy to explain this. :-) Say you drive a
> car from one place to another, point A to point B, in some round-about
> path, perhaps up and down a bunch of hills, and you note at the end that
> you used 2 gallons of gas (chemical energy). Then later you drive from
> point A to point B along a straight highway with no hills, and you only
> use 1 gallon of gas. Asking "where does that force go" is like asking how
> can you possibly have that extra gallon of gas left in your car, when you
> have already determined that the trip requires 2 gallons.
>
>
> are in a car that is stuck in a ditch. If the wheel is not sliding, then
> you can push on the gas pedal, apply more force to the tire-dirt
> interface, and eventually the tire will lift the car from the hole and you
> are on your way. But the sliding situation is different. If the wheel is
> sliding, then it doesn't matter how far you push the gas pedal, or how
> fast the tire spins, there is (essentially) the same force applied toward
> lifting the car, and that force is not enough to lift it from the hole.
>
Thank you, Ron, thank you. Whether what you are saying here is right or
wrong, it's VISUAL. People can read it and understand it. I applaud
your use of simple, visual anologies. It makes for exponentially more
enjoyable reading.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
This time it was worth every penny (yes, both of them!).
:)
TW
Thomas Wayne
OKAY, OKAY, OKAY...
I'm tired of waiting for someone to ask why I originally titled this
string: "Rosabelle, believe!", so I'M asking you guys. What's the
significance of the title, specifically? This is some deep dark trivia,
so I don't expect anyone to get it. However, the first person to post
the correct answer wins a free JossWest cue from Bill Stroud (award of
prize contingent upon winner's ability to talk Bill into giving them a
cue, offer void where prohibited by Bill, etc.)
It should be noted that Hank Miller of Chesapeake Cues is not eligible
due to the fact that I done already told him the answer.
TW
Ron Shepard
In article <01bc169b$8435edc0$2845...@cues.erols.com>, "Henry K. Miller"
<cu...@erols.com> wrote:
> Kelly Peterson <bay...@popalex1.linknet.net> wrote in article
> <287cd$1617f.29e@NEWS>...
> > bill stroud <joss...@eden.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Ron Shepard wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Do you believe that it is possible to have a stiff shaft with minimal
> squirt?
> > >>
> >
> > I just had some non-player friends read your question. They got a
> > kick out of it. Think about what your asking.
>
> Finally! At last this thread has been brought to a level that (with or
> without formulas) I can fully understand. :-)
Usually it is Carl[oa] that points out this, err... odd, coincidence of
terminology. Where is Carl when you need him? :-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Rose
Someone tell me if I'm right or wrong on this but I was playing 8-ball
and normally if I'm just playing for the rack, I don't care how we play
as far as the rules are concerned. Otherwise I would like to play by the
book. 8-ball and his stripe were the 2 balls left on the table. The 8
was behind the headstring, he had no shot so he just pockets the cue
ball straight in. Playing by the book, is that not ball in hand anywhere
on table? I believe his intentions were innocent, so I said nothing and
played one rail, missed and left him out. I normally will make sure we
both agree on all rules before I start, and I don't care who's rules as
long as we agree. But I didn't this time and it burned me for at least
one game. How does anybody else play this and do you know the true rule?
Thanks for any responses.
JR
Henry K. Miller
Thomas Wayne <t...@alaska.net> wrote in article
<32FE0C...@alaska.net>...
Furthermore, Hank Miller of Chesapeake Cues certainly does not have the
ability to talk Bill into giving him a cue...answer or no answer.
HKM
S&T McF
JR:
In most bar room situations, what he did was perfectly legal. It was,
however, an unsportsmanlike thing to do (YES,YES ---I know all you "Live
and Die By The Rules" folks will say this is the right shot to play). I
have played in places where the 8 would have been spotted in that
situation.
Let's be practical. It's just one game....and you found out what kind
of person your opponent is.
I learned a lesson about this when I was younger. I was playing
someone, for fun, who was a very superior player. I was an OK player,
but nothing special, and had played with person a few times. He would
break, make his side, and leave the 8, so that I could have a crack at a
few shots. I didn't realize what he was doing.....thought he was just
choking. He would do this pretty consistently. He left the 8 hanging
one game (on a very easy shot), so I safed him real well (very proud of
my cleverness). He glared at me with a look that would kill, broke down
his cue and walked away. Only later in the day, when I went to talk to
him, did he tell me what he was doing and said he would never play me
again. A bought drink and a very sincere apology for my actions and
lack of knowledge had him talking to me again, but you know what.....he
never played with me again and I lost the chance to ever learn anything
from this marvelous player.
As such, whenever I'm faced with your opponents's situation in a
friendly game, I will play the ball. If my opponent does to me what
your's did, I won't say anything, will try my shot and play out the
round, game, whatever........but he goes off of my playing list and will
never again get to learn anything directly from me, accept maybe a
lesson about intentional fouling.
If there's money on the line though..............
Regards,
Scott McFarlane
Covington, Kentucky
JSilverFox
>I just had some non-player friends read your question. They got a
>kick out of it. Think about what your asking.
Kelly,
This is the phenom that was talked about in another thread and that has to
do with older shafts. I have found, to my disappointment, that it is true
that the older stiff shafts actually do produce less squirt. ;-)
Hope this helps to reduce the potential tension in this thread from two
wise and respected participants whose comments, especially in this thread,
are giving me alot to consider as to the playability of various shafts.
John Thompson
Charlotte, NC
Ron Shepard
In article <01bc168e$f1d27540$404a...@glennf.mnsinc.com>, "Frank Glenn" <
*gle...@mnsinc.com (remove the *)> wrote:
>[...] Anyway, can squirt be caused by the fact
>that the cuetip is round, and the cueball is round, and you are
>hitting the cueball off center (see, Tom, I am paying attention) and
>the cueball sort of 'rolls' a little around the tip before it leaves
>on its 'new' path? (that was a question, you can tell by the?). This
>may be an oversimplification (I may not have spelled that word
>correctly, but we have already established that I'm uneducated), but
>it makes sense to me. [...]
A version of this was my pet theory for a couple of years too. Great
Minds think alike, as they say. :-) The idea was that the cue ball
"rolls" to the side a bit during the finite contact time of the tip on the
ball. This roll causes the shaft to push to the side, and, like bending a
spring, the shaft pushes against the ball. So, to minimize squirt one
could, among other things, user harder ferrules and harder tips. The
harder tip would result in a shorter contact time, less roll, less shaft
displacement, and eventually less squirt. Unfortunately, I have tried
using harder tips on my cue, and they have, at best, little effect on
reducing squirt. I have not tried the other part of the experiment,
namely seeing if softer tips would increase squirt. LePro tips were my
starting point, Chandivert Rockys were my experimental "hard" tips.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
R. Moran
This depends on the circumstances. What rules did you decide on B4 you
began the game? If you're not playing ball in hand, you're SOL. The guy
is getting away with a cheasy manuever that takes advantage of that.
If you are playing ball in hand, then you should take it, he scratched...
which is not a legal hit, entitling you to it.
Max Gilbert
Thomas Wayne wrote:
>
> OKAY, OKAY, OKAY...
>
> I'm tired of waiting for someone to ask why I originally titled this
> string: "Rosabelle, believe!", so I'M asking you guys. What's the
> significance of the title, specifically? This is some deep dark trivia,
> so I don't expect anyone to get it. However, the first person to post
> the correct answer wins a free JossWest cue from Bill Stroud (award of
> prize contingent upon winner's ability to talk Bill into giving them a
> cue, offer void where prohibited by Bill, etc.)
>
> It should be noted that Hank Miller of Chesapeake Cues is not eligible
> due to the fact that I done already told him the answer.
>
> TW
The reference is from a message supposedly sent from beyond the grave by
Harry Houdini to his wife Bess.
I have a Josswest already. I will be glad to have another.
m
John Walkup
S&T McF <sc...@opone.com> writes:
>John Rose wrote:
>>
>> Someone tell me if I'm right or wrong on this but I was playing 8-ball
>> and normally if I'm just playing for the rack, I don't care how we play
>> as far as the rules are concerned. Otherwise I would like to play by the
>> book. 8-ball and his stripe were the 2 balls left on the table. The 8
>> was behind the headstring, he had no shot so he just pockets the cue
>> ball straight in. Playing by the book, is that not ball in hand anywhere
>> on table? I believe his intentions were innocent, so I said nothing and
>> played one rail, missed and left him out. I normally will make sure we
>> both agree on all rules before I start, and I don't care who's rules as
>> long as we agree. But I didn't this time and it burned me for at least
>> one game. How does anybody else play this and do you know the true rule?
>> Thanks for any responses.
Why not just bump the cue ball behind the eight, giving him no shot?
After all, fouls on the eight are not loss of game, and you are obviously
not playing ball-in-hand on fouls. After a couple of exchanges, maybe
he would go ahead and attempt a shot on his stripe. Just make it known
by your mannerisms that you can do this all day.
It seems that you want to play by BCA rules (or something comparable)
while your opponent wants to play by "friendly" rules. (It is the
friendly rules which cause so many fistfights.) I think I would pick
a new opponent.
>I learned a lesson about this when I was younger. I was playing
>someone, for fun, who was a very superior player. I was an OK player,
>but nothing special, and had played with person a few times. He would
>break, make his side, and leave the 8, so that I could have a crack at a
>few shots. I didn't realize what he was doing.....thought he was just
>choking. He would do this pretty consistently. He left the 8 hanging
>one game (on a very easy shot), so I safed him real well (very proud of
>my cleverness). He glared at me with a look that would kill, broke down
>his cue and walked away. Only later in the day, when I went to talk to
>him, did he tell me what he was doing and said he would never play me
>again. A bought drink and a very sincere apology for my actions and
>lack of knowledge had him talking to me again, but you know what.....he
>never played with me again and I lost the chance to ever learn anything
>from this marvelous player.
There are a ton of marvelous players out there. You didn't lose anything.
All you would have learned from him was how to be a sore loser.
John
twc
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:22:08 -0600, she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard)
wrote:
>In article <01bc168e$f1d27540$404a...@glennf.mnsinc.com>, "Frank Glenn" <
>*gle...@mnsinc.com (remove the *)> wrote:
>
>>[...] Anyway, can squirt be caused by the fact
>>that the cuetip is round, and the cueball is round, and you are
>>hitting the cueball off center (see, Tom, I am paying attention) and
>>the cueball sort of 'rolls' a little around the tip before it leaves
>>on its 'new' path?
>
>Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> The idea was that the cue ball
>"rolls" to the side a bit during the finite contact time of the tip on the
>ball. This roll causes the shaft to push to the side, and, like bending a
>spring, the shaft pushes against the ball. So, to minimize squirt one
>could, among other things, user harder ferrules and harder tips. The
>harder tip would result in a shorter contact time, less roll, less shaft
>displacement, and eventually less squirt. Unfortunately, I have tried
>using harder tips on my cue, and they have, at best, little effect on
>reducing squirt. I have not tried the other part of the experiment,
>namely seeing if softer tips would increase squirt. LePro tips were my
>starting point, Chandivert Rockys were my experimental "hard" tips.
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard
The only problem with blaming squirt on the roundness of the cue tip
is the need for MORE squirt from a ROUNDER tip and less squirt from a
flatter tip. As you know, the opposite effect is observed...
TW
Thomas Wayne
Max Gilbert wrote:
>
> The reference is from a message supposedly sent from beyond the grave by
> Harry Houdini to his wife Bess.
>
> I have a Josswest already. I will be glad to have another.
>
> m
Wow! Didn't think anyone would know that kind of stuff. "Rosabelle,
believe!" was actually part of a complex code Harry and Bess had used in
an early-career mind reading act. Much later, they formed a pact
between them to attempt to communicate from beyond the grave. Whichever
spouse preceded the other in death would try to send this secret message
back to the surviving partner. After Harry's death (1931?) many
attempts were made by famous spiritual mediums of the time to contact
Harry's spirit on behalf of Bess. Because of their failure to do so, it
became well known that there was a secret code, but no one knew exactly
what it was. For a time, it was the best kept public secret in the
world. Not unlike the Predator pitch...
Contratulations to Max Gilbert, and thank you for declining the Josswest
prize. Sorry, no substitute prize is available...
TW
R. Moran
Besides, safteties are part of the game and essentially, he was helping
you learn the game by giving you the chances. Your safety showed him that
you did infact learn and more importantly, showed him that if you excel at
them, you might be able to play at his level without the shot making
ability. I would say 80% of my tournament wins came from safeties. What
a dork.
On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Jeffrey Weiss wrote:
> S&T McF <sc...@opone.com>:
> > I learned a lesson about this when I was younger. I was playing
> > someone, for fun, who was a very superior player. I was an OK player,
> > but nothing special, and had played with person a few times. He would
> > break, make his side, and leave the 8, so that I could have a crack at a
> > few shots. I didn't realize what he was doing.....thought he was just
> > choking. He would do this pretty consistently. He left the 8 hanging
> > one game (on a very easy shot), so I safed him real well (very proud of
> > my cleverness). He glared at me with a look that would kill, broke down
> > his cue and walked away. Only later in the day, when I went to talk to
> > him, did he tell me what he was doing and said he would never play me
> > again.
>
> Well, to me, this shows that even a guy who's nice enough to give you a chance
> to shoot in each game can still act like a jerk. I can't give too much credit
> to someone who says "OK, you can have a shot," but who gets pissed off if you
> make the best play available. He's only incenting you to learn bad tactics.
> --
> jw (NYC)
>
>
>
Adam Granatella
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 08:40:40 -0500, sc...@opone.com says...
>As such, whenever I'm faced with your opponents's situation in a
>friendly game, I will play the ball. If my opponent does to me what
>your's did, I won't say anything, will try my shot and play out the
>round, game, whatever........but he goes off of my playing list and will
>never again get to learn anything directly from me, accept maybe a
>lesson about intentional fouling.
So you're saying that as far as you're concerned there's no such thing as a
safety in pool?
--
_______________________________________________________________
Adam "XaQ" Granatella Introspectre
ad...@execpc.com Intros...@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~adamg/introspectre.html
"Imagine flying across the oceans, to be gone without a trace.
Only to wake in this prisoned shell, my body a corpse prepared
for Hell."
--- Introspectre, "Dream of Dead"
Seth Johnson
R. Moran wrote:
>
> Besides, safteties are part of the game and essentially, he was helping
> you learn the game by giving you the chances. Your safety showed him that
> you did infact learn and more importantly, showed him that if you excel at
> them, you might be able to play at his level without the shot making
> ability. I would say 80% of my tournament wins came from safeties. What
> a dork.
>
play me, because as we all know, you
only get better when you play against someone better than yourself. To
me, winning the game doesn't mean
anything when I am playing someone who is twice, three times, my skill
level. We both know that if they
beared down I wouldn't shoot, or if I did, it would be from a horrible
position. What makes me feel
great, and what makes the game worthwhile, is when they leave you a shot
and you make the most of it. A
"good shot!" or "very good choice" comment always gives me an ego
boost. If I were playing someone who
broke down his cue because I played a good safe, I wouldn't shoot with
him again. Ever. He is obviously a poor loser.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If replying by e-mail, remove the * in front of my e-mail address.
It was put there to stop automated mailing programs.
Bob Jewett
Bill Stroud (bi...@jw.cues.com) wrote:
: If you could [play], you would realize that making an object ball is
: not really the point. You can make all the balls you need to with
: almost any cue. The important thing is control over the cueball. ...
: You want more control over your position. ...
I think that you don't even have to play to realize this point. The problem
is how to measure whether one cue is better than another for control. Below
is a simple progressive practice test to find out how much control you get
with a particular stick.
Two points first: The shot is draw because draw is the most difficult
stroke to contol. Shooting five shots with a stick and then declaring
it awesome or hopeless is a little premature. 50 or 100 is more like
it, but still won't cover all varieties of shots and also let you get
really accustomed to the balance/taper/tip/etc. If you don't make an
effort to learn the cue, the result may well be, "It's not like what
I'm used to so it's crap."
Progressive Practice Control Test
Set up an object ball close to a corner pocket. Place the cue ball a
short distance away, and mark its position with a coin just to the
side. The goal is to pocket the ball and draw the cue ball back
without hitting a rail to within 9 inches of the starting point (nine
inches because that's my hand span -- feel free to use a different
accuracy requirement). If you make the shot with the required precise
draw, move the coin back some (a hand width?); if you miss the shot or
required position, make the shot easier by the same distance. After 15
to 100 shots, depending on your patience, note the final position,
maybe in diamonds. That's the "control rating" for you for that
stick. Remember to move the coin after each shot, or the rating is
inaccurate.
Test sticks. Report results.
Bob Jewett
Paul A. Martinez
13 Feb. 1997
John,
the way that i was taught was that the only way that it is ball in
hand is when you are playing by tournament rules other wise it is behind
the second diamond.
Paul
On 10 Feb 1997, John Rose wrote:
> Someone tell me if I'm right or wrong on this but I was playing 8-ball
> and normally if I'm just playing for the rack, I don't care how we play
> as far as the rules are concerned. Otherwise I would like to play by the
> book. 8-ball and his stripe were the 2 balls left on the table. The 8
> was behind the headstring, he had no shot so he just pockets the cue
> ball straight in. Playing by the book, is that not ball in hand anywhere
> on table? I believe his intentions were innocent, so I said nothing and
> played one rail, missed and left him out. I normally will make sure we
> both agree on all rules before I start, and I don't care who's rules as
> long as we agree. But I didn't this time and it burned me for at least
> one game. How does anybody else play this and do you know the true rule?
> Thanks for any responses.
>
> JR
>
>
Craig Arnold
Tom Simpson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:31:40 GMT, t...@alaska.net (twc) wrote:
>
> ::On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:22:08 -0600, she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard)
> ::wrote:
> ::
> ::>In article <01bc168e$f1d27540$404a...@glennf.mnsinc.com>, "Frank Glenn" <
> the fact that Allan (Clawson Cues - Predator) recommends the dime
> radius tip shape (which, of course, is "rounder" than the traditional
> nickel or quarter shape).
>
> If the tip is rounder, the contact point on the cueball is further out
> from center than for a flatter tip shape, given the same stick
> position. With the contact point further out, you'll get more squirt.
> But, you'll also get more english. This could explain the feeling
> among Predator owners that they get more english.
>
> Conversely, this also seems to indicate that with the smaller radius
> tip, you can actually aim closer to center ball and get the same
> action you would by aiming further out with a flatter tip.
>
> Here's where I get confused. If you can hit closer to center and get
> the same action, shouldn't you also get less squirt? Yes, you're
> hitting the same cueball contact point, but since your shaft would be
> on a different line, it seems to me that with the rounder tip, you're
> hitting a spot on the tip that is actually closer to the center of the
> shaft. So I guess I'm asking "Do you get less shaft deflection when
> you hit closer to the center of the tip?"
>
> And while we're on this, Tarl's comments reminded me of when I first
> got my Predator (2 years ago). I had forgotten this, and I still don't
> know whether it's a "real" effect or not, but it seemed to me at the
> time that I could feel the cueball contact better (translated:
> longer). Could it be that, with a smaller tip radius, the shaft
> deflects/rolls off the side of the cueball more smoothly (ie, no
> "bump" rolling off the less sharp edge of the tip), giving that
> feeling of increased contact? And if this is the case, could this
> smoother deflection be a reason for squirt being reduced without the
> control/consistency losses reported in other very flexible/whippy
> shafts?
>
> Iron Willie should post in this group ; ).
>
> Fascinating reading here the past coupla weeks, guys. Thanks.
>
> Tom Simpson
> Elephant Balls, Ltd.
> Columbus, Ohio
I see what your saying here but I'll throw in my two cents. I always
played with a dime shaped tip for the last six years. six months ago I
got a Pretador shaft and noted that to get the same action on the ball I
could be a full tip more towards the center of the ball. I also noticed
that I had to be dead center on stop shots, any deviation had an effect
on cue ball position, creating a need for more perfection in centerball
hits!
craig....@worldnet.att.com
tacoma WA
Tom Simpson
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:31:40 GMT, t...@alaska.net (twc) wrote:
::On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:22:08 -0600, she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard)
::wrote:
Ron Shepard
In article <330544...@worldnet.att.net>, craig....@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Tom Simpson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:31:40 GMT, t...@alaska.net (twc) wrote:
[...]
> > ::The only problem with blaming squirt on the roundness of the cue tip
> > ::is the need for MORE squirt from a ROUNDER tip and less squirt from a
> > ::flatter tip. As you know, the opposite effect is observed...
I have not compared the squirt of a given stick as a function of tip
radius. Has anyone else done this? If so, please post your results.
> > Following the Predator & Rosabelle threads recently, I thought about
> > the fact that Allan (Clawson Cues - Predator) recommends the dime
> > radius tip shape (which, of course, is "rounder" than the traditional
> > nickel or quarter shape).
> >
> > If the tip is rounder, the contact point on the cueball is further out
> > from center than for a flatter tip shape, given the same stick
> > position. With the contact point further out, you'll get more squirt.
> > But, you'll also get more english. This could explain the feeling
> > among Predator owners that they get more english.
I mentioned this earlier in this thread as part of a general "perception"
problem that might affect a player's judgement of the actual contact point
on the cue ball. Another thing that affects this pereption is the shaft
diameter. One good way to determine what is the actual contact point is
to use a dark object ball in place of the cue ball and to look at the
chalk spot afterwards. It helps if the object ball is marked and
carefully oriented before the shot. Another good way is to use the
Elephant Practice Balls that Tom Simpson manufactures. Most players are
surprised at the difference between their estimate of the contact point
and the actual chalk spot.
Usually the "actual" contact point is not that important to a player. As
long as whatever convention he uses is consistent with his judgement,
everything is fine. He can use the shaft radius, the displacement of the
inside of the shaft, or the displacement of the outside of the shaft. But
if he is trying to quantify his experimental results with a theory, or if
he is communicating his results to others, then everyone needs to agree on
the convention to describe the tip displacement. I think that the
"actual" contact point is probably the best thing to use, but, apart from
chalk spot measurements, it is not something that is easy to determine.
BTW, my hypothesis regarding contact time and cue ball rotation did not
depend on the curvature of either the ball or the tip. If a flat tip were
to hit off center on, say, the flat face of a cube-shaped cue ball, then
this cube-shaped object would turn slightly during the contact time and
cause the same kind of sideways displacement. As I mentioned previously
in this thread, this hypothesis does not seem to agree with experiment.
> > [...] So I guess I'm asking "Do you get less shaft deflection when
> > you hit closer to the center of the tip?"
Interesting question. Can you think of a good way to set up an experiment
to test this?
[...]
> > Iron Willie should post in this group ; ).
At least "he" should publish his results. Certainly a pool magazine would
publish something like this but I think it may be possible to publish this
kind of information in a physics or materials science journal.
[...]
> I see what your saying here but I'll throw in my two cents. I always
> played with a dime shaped tip for the last six years. six months ago I
> got a Pretador shaft and noted that to get the same action on the ball I
> could be a full tip more towards the center of the ball. I also noticed
> that I had to be dead center on stop shots, any deviation had an effect
> on cue ball position, creating a need for more perfection in centerball
> hits!
Can you hit with significantly more than a tip width from center? What is
your tip diameter? How do your two cues compare in the Draw Shot Test?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Craig Arnold
I've always used 13mm tips and yes I can hit more than a tips width off
center. Without Iron Willie its hard to compare draw in my mind.
Pat Greenwald
Craig Arnold <craig....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> I see what your saying here but I'll throw in my two cents. I always
> played with a dime shaped tip for the last six years. six months ago I
> got a Pretador shaft and noted that to get the same action on the ball I
> could be a full tip more towards the center of the ball. I also noticed
> that I had to be dead center on stop shots, any deviation had an effect
> on cue ball position, creating a need for more perfection in centerball
> hits!
OK, if you go to a Carom table, and shoot from 30 to 30 using
maximum english. what is your return? If you post your results it would
be nice to know what type table conditions were. You also may want to
take of what your return is with various cues ?
I'll admit to being a bit skeptical about "to get the same action on the
ball I could be a full tip more towards the center of the ball". I mean
where do you try to hit the ball with a "regular" cue ?
Pat Greenwald
PGree...@Lucent.Com
PS I just may have to borrow a predator and see, again, for myself.
I certainly don't recall ANYTHING spectacular about the cue.
Craig Arnold
> OK, if you go to a Carom table, and shoot from 30 to 30 using
> maximum english. what is your return? If you post your results it would
> be nice to know what type table conditions were. You also may want to
> take of what your return is with various cues ?
>
> I'll admit to being a bit skeptical about "to get the same action on the
> ball I could be a full tip more towards the center of the ball". I mean
> where do you try to hit the ball with a "regular" cue ?
>
> Pat Greenwald
> PGree...@Lucent.Com
>
> PS I just may have to borrow a predator and see, again, for myself.
> I certainly don't recall ANYTHING spectacular about the cue.
I don't mean to make it sound spectacular maybe it does. Unfortunately I
don't have access to a true billiards table or I'd try to post some
credable reults (measurements). The best I can say is that using the
same butt and varing only the shaft (same tip type, same table).
Shooting the cue ball from the center of the table to the center of the
end rail causing the cue ball to go to the side pocket I use a hit 3/4's
of tip closer to the center of the cue ball with a pretitor shaft (the
other shaft and butt by Huebler). The speed on the shot is just enough
to drive another ball into the side pocket. Sorry for the poor
definition of what shot I was attempting.
Ron Shepard
In article <33098F...@worldnet.att.net>, craig....@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
[...]
>I don't mean to make it sound spectacular maybe it does. Unfortunately I
>don't have access to a true billiards table or I'd try to post some
>credable reults (measurements). The best I can say is that using the
>same butt and varing only the shaft (same tip type, same table).
>Shooting the cue ball from the center of the table to the center of the
>end rail causing the cue ball to go to the side pocket I use a hit 3/4's
>of tip closer to the center of the cue ball with a pretitor shaft (the
>other shaft and butt by Huebler). The speed on the shot is just enough
>to drive another ball into the side pocket. Sorry for the poor
>definition of what shot I was attempting.
I think this is a good approach, but here is one more thing to worry
about. With a shot this slow, the cue ball certainly achieves natural
roll before it hits the end cushion. In this case, the spin/speed ratio
(which I think is the most important factor in how far to the side the cue
ball goes) also depends on the vertical displacement of the cue tip.
Basically, the lower you hit the ball, the higher the spin/speed ratio,
and the more "apparent spin" on the cue ball. So, when comparing the
sidespin on such a shot, make sure to the extent possible that the actual
contact points are the same for the two shafts. The actual contact point
can be determined by examining the chalk spot, and the chalk spot shows up
better with a dark object ball than the white cue ball. If you make
careful measurments of the tip contact point and the cue ball angle off
the end cushion, or equivalently the cue ball contact point on the side
cushion, then I think you can put together a reliable experiment with the
above approach.
$.02 -Ron Shepard