Can someone explain throw?

[thelongbomber]

A good explanation, but I would make a minor observation on the bit quoted above: Although many people have thought for years that shaft stiffness contributes to squirt / deflection, evidence has shown that this is not the case (at least not to any significant degree). What matters is the 'effective end mass' of the shaft, which is the mass of the last few inches of the shaft. So cues that are thinner (and often more whippy) will deflect less. So will ones that have a straight, or 'pro', taper.

So anyone looking for a cue with low deflection characteristics shouldn't waste time testing for stiffness. In theory cutting down the ferrule could help; but some back-of-the-envelope calculations that I did some time ago when messing around with a cue indicated that it would not make an appreciable amount of difference.

A smaller tip will certainly help, but that is another story...

Interesting. I wish there was a definitive guide on all of this but unfortunately, because we all cue and grip cues a bit differently, the findings are never totally consistent. The only company I know that has reached some conclusive results is Predator which makes the America pool cues and shafts. Changing cue end mass is something they have worked out quite conclusively; they have hollowed out the last x inches of their laminated pool shafts.

Acuerate also seems to have reached something significant with their snooker cues which have a smaller tip size.

I think players that expect the cue ball to divert offline when striking with side have learned to aim and sight that way and want a standard cue profile, whereas players that prefer less throw in their cue should opt for smaller tip sizes, narrower cue profiles, and cheaper mass produced cues (which frequently have less dense, and thus lighter shaft wood).

There isn't a straight answer here, just more questions

[nrage]

A good explanation, but I would make a minor observation on the bit quoted above: Although many people have thought for years that shaft stiffness contributes to squirt / deflection, evidence has shown that this is not the case (at least not to any significant degree). What matters is the 'effective end mass' of the shaft, which is the mass of the last few inches of the shaft. So cues that are thinner (and often more whippy) will deflect less. So will ones that have a straight, or 'pro', taper.

So anyone looking for a cue with low deflection characteristics shouldn't waste time testing for stiffness. In theory cutting down the ferrule could help; but some back-of-the-envelope calculations that I did some time ago when messing around with a cue indicated that it would not make an appreciable amount of difference.

A smaller tip will certainly help, but that is another story...

Here is a good video which talks about squirt and swerve and end-mass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXJ7b...pyXDRCrPRr5eyJ

[vmax4steve]

I think players that expect the cue ball to divert offline when striking with side have learned to aim and sight that way and want a standard cue profile, whereas players that prefer less throw in their cue should opt for smaller tip sizes, narrower cue profiles, and cheaper mass produced cues (which frequently have less dense, and thus lighter shaft wood).

There isn't a straight answer here, just more questions

The straight answer is that when sidespin is applied the cue ball doesn't travel straight to it's target and the deviation of the cue ball (deflection) has to be allowed for. The fact that this deflection varies with different cues and different techniques means that one has to practise with ones OWN cue and discover what ones OWN cue and what ones OWN technique does to the cue ball.
THERE ARE NO SHORTCUTS.................PRACTISE ! PRACTISE ! PRACTISE ! AND LEARN

[vmax4steve]

Here is a good video which talks about squirt and swerve and end-mass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXJ7b...pyXDRCrPRr5eyJ

So if I attach a sextant to my cue I won't be able to cue straight. All those hours of pool on the poop deck wasted, thanks nrage.

[pottr]

Hitting the cueball on the left will throw the object ball to the right.
Hitting the cueball on the right will throw the object ball to the left.

The theory is simple, the execution is not.

There are no shortcuts to learning the application for this other than through practice. I wouldn't worry about looking for examples to implement it in a game/match situation until you've worked out how to apply the theory without needing to be told how.

[nrage]

So if I attach a sextant to my cue I won't be able to cue straight. All those hours of pool on the poop deck wasted, thanks nrage.

Some people create videos to help others.
Some people post links to videos to help people find them.
Some people post pointless comments in a futile effort to feel better about being a total waste of time and space.

Which would you rather be?

[vmax4steve]

Some people create videos to help others.
Some people post links to videos to help people find them.
Some people post pointless comments in a futile effort to feel better about being a total waste of time and space.

Which would you rather be?

Some people have no sense of humour

[Inoffthered]

Some people create videos to help others.
Some people post links to videos to help people find them.
Some people post pointless comments in a futile effort to feel better about being a total waste of time and space.

Which would you rather be?

Golliwogs 4tw!

[nrage]

Some people have no sense of humour

Some people aren't funny.

[vmax4steve]

Some people aren't funny.

The bloke in that video is though, when he attached that thing to his cue and then couldn't cue straight I just burst out laughing. Anyone who takes that seriously is gullible enough to spend 500 quid on a low deflection cue and then believe that he can play with side.
If he had duck taped a housebrick to the end of his cue the analogy would have been the same but just as ridiculous as no one could see just where he was aiming in order to "prove" his theory and therefore sell the product.
It's nothing more than Snake Oil.

[Siz]

The bloke in that video is though, when he attached that thing to his cue and then couldn't cue straight I just burst out laughing. Anyone who takes that seriously is gullible enough to spend 500 quid on a low deflection cue and then believe that he can play with side.
If he had duck taped a housebrick to the end of his cue the analogy would have been the same but just as ridiculous as no one could see just where he was aiming in order to "prove" his theory and therefore sell the product.
It's nothing more than Snake Oil.

'The bloke in the video is Mike Page, one of a number of respected scientists / academics who have published some interesting material on the science of cue sports. (And as far as I know does not sell either Preditor shafts or sextants).

The science relating to cb deflection is not new - in the video Mike Page gave credit to Ron Sheppard and Dave Alciatore for putting stuff out on this years before that video was posted. But the video does illustrate the principle quite nicely, especially the effect of moving the mass further from from the tip.

[vmax4steve]

'The bloke in the video is Mike Page, one of a number of respected scientists / academics who have published some interesting material on the science of cue sports. (And as far as I know does not sell either Preditor shafts or sextants).

There is only one way to prove that the cue he is "marketing" gives no deflection and that is to place the cue ball against a cushion and play it along the cushion using both right and left hand side. If he can make it hug the cushion without aiming to allow for any deflection then he is right and I would bow down to him, take my hat off, whatever. A line drawn on a table and not being able to see exactly where he is aiming doesn't cut it I'm afraid.