Is Stephen Hendry still using his Acuerate cue?

[Inoffthered]

JP1:

Just a question as you seem to know about the ash. I've recently purchased an LK.T cue with his best ash shaft (Family I) and I presently use a top-of-the-line Trevor White cue and I also have a new Robin Cook cue.

Terry

Just lovin' my ebony butt/ash TW. It's easily one of ( if not the best ) quality ash cue I've ever used. So I don't understand or agree with this sweeping statement that ash cues outside the UK are better. Just IMHO of course

[eaoin11]

Low deflection rubbish, the better player laughs about these claims anyway, what happens with the Acurate cue when you want and need side on your cue ball ??? """Sorry this is a low deflection pro cue no side allowed.""" as they say you can fool of all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.

Yep just a marketing ploy and not even an original one. The low deflection story has been pretty successful in the US market for years and Accuerate basically copied the story without any substantial technology. I think it turned out to be just a special taper?

But there's nothing to say that low deflection means no side, it's supposed to allow more side to be played accurately.

[JP1]

I think we all pretty well understand the claims being made, consider a cue that inhibits "unwanted" deflection, what they are saying is you cant deliver a cue in a straight line hence getting unwanted deflection, but if you use our cue it will limit the amount of unwanted deflection you get, therefore the claim is that their cue actually limits the deflection you get from any other cue striking a cue ball, do you follow? irrespective of the physical characteristics or the cue the claim is quite specific, they even give you schematics on their website, about how their cue limit side deflection. You are a pretty good player lets say a century maker, you have landed on the black requiring to pot same and obtain position on the next red, the only red available is to the same pocket you are potting the black into, in order to get position your stroke is aimed at 7 O Clock with medium pace to come of the top and side rail for position on the next red.
If I have a cue that limits deflection from the cue ball to the object ball I am liable to miss the black and under hit position on the next red. It's axiomatic.
It is easier to sell this gimmick on a pool table where players hit the object and cue ball at power most of the time, but in snooker or billiards makes the claimant look like a goose or an opportunistic jerk.
As I have said before, they are B grade cues made in China and if they were any good the Chinese would have their own copies on the market in no time at all.

Yep just a marketing ploy and not even an original one. The low deflection story has been pretty successful in the US market for years and Accuerate basically copied the story without any substantial technology. I think it turned out to be just a special taper?

But there's nothing to say that low deflection means no side, it's supposed to allow more side to be played accurately.

[trevs1]

The Accurate cue does not allow more or less side to be applied, neither is what they are claiming.

They claim that these cues will allow a player to play a given shot with as much side (or off centre striking of the cueball) and make no allowance for the deflection that is often experienced (to varying degrees) when using other cues. The whole idea is to minimise the guesswork that is involved when striking the cueball off centre, and adjusting the point of aim from cueball to object ball.

I'm sure many of us will know that cues can be massively variable in how they will force a player to make these adjustments, some having to make more adjustment, and some less, almost to the point of making no adjustment at all. There is no big secret in making a cue play with minimal deflection, but, it will have to be made to certain tolerances, which does limit the choice of specs open to players.

I'd rather not get too much into this, but the above is very true.

What I would say about the few Accurate cues I have tried is this. Yes, they did reduce deflection down to incredibly low levels, but, they were not very pleasant to use at all, and were actually stone dead when it came to generating any kind of response when the white was struck below centre. The effort required to get any decent amount of instant backspin was ridiculous, and I for one would NEVER use a cue which made EVERY "below centre white" shot so difficult.

Most players learn to adapt to thier cues and the amount of deflection (or throw) that they produce, and as we already know, all of the best snooker ever seen has been played using traditional cues with no gimmicks or "new technology". What does that tell us.???

[eaoin11]

The Accurate cue does not allow more or less side to be applied, neither is what they are claiming.

You're right they don't claim being able to generate more side, but allowing side to be played with more potting accuracy. An american company, Predator cues, do claim being able to generate more spin as well as low deflection.

you have landed on the black requiring to pot same and obtain position on the next red, the only red available is to the same pocket you are potting the black into, in order to get position your stroke is aimed at 7 O Clock with medium pace to come of the top and side rail for position on the next red.
If I have a cue that limits deflection from the cue ball to the object ball I am liable to miss the black and under hit position on the next red. It's axiomatic.

Yes this is one of the reasons I didn't like Predator shafts. I've been compensating for throw without thought for years and could barely pot a ball when I tried their 314 2 shaft. I wouldn't want to re-learn the entire game for the sake of low deflection.

[marriott]

The Accurate cue does not allow more or less side to be applied, neither is what they are claiming.

I remember when ordering my Parris Ultimate in February this year, John told me he was at an event with Mark Allen and there was an acuerate cue on one of the practice tables. Anyway the long and short of it was they attempted to test this theory of whether the cue allowed less side to be applied. Allen played one typical shot to test this and his response to John was along the lines of "total b*llocks!"

[poolqjunkie]

Luca and Stephen both play with Acuerate. I am wondering aside from the low deflection claims, may be they like their cues just like how all other pros like theirs--not necessarily because of low deflection but simply because of the way the cues play? Not saying Acuerate is a great cue or anything like that. But if you give Stephen lots of Acuerate to choose from, it is very possible that he has just found one which he likes. It is not neccessarily because he likes the low deflection, may be he just like how the cue hits in general.