Latest activity

Latest activity

 Social Media Forum list

SJM in the AZB HOF? Should be!!

Kentucky Rack Man
dquarasr said:
I am a casual consumer of Professional pool. I attended the Florida Open in Orlando earlier this year.

I reached out to Stu, whom I met early in the tournament at the venue, if only briefly. He was and I am sure always is friendly, extremely knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and a true ambassador of the sport. I went away from our short encounter impressed by him.

Combine that with his love of the game and his wonderful prolific spot-on contributions to discussions here on AZB Forums over many years, I submit @sjm belongs in the AZB HOF if he is not already considered so.

- Doug
Click to expand...
I second that with my vote. I have met him at US Open and the Derby and enjoyed his company and vast knowledge and History of Professional Pool. He has a PASSION for the game and is the GOAT.
Click to expand...

Cole Dickson's practice session routine

jay helfert
jjohnson said:
You read what I posted. I lived what I posted. You read what Grok 3 had to say. And here is what CoPilot has to say:

in 1967-1968, did ford increase the size under the hood of the mustange to take a larger 350 v8 motor? not a shelby. a reengineered mustang converible?
Short Answer: Yes — in 1967 Ford enlarged the Mustang’s body and engine bay to accommodate big-block V8s, but not specifically a “350.” The factory options included engines up to the 390, 427, and 428 cubic-inch V8s. The redesign applied to all Mustangs (including convertibles), not just Shelbys.

🔧 What Changed in 1967–1968
First major redesign: The 1967 Mustang was the first significant update since its 1964½ debut. Ford stretched the body slightly — about 2 inches longer — while keeping the same wheelbase.

Engine bay enlargement: The front end was widened and the shock towers repositioned, giving more room under the hood. This allowed Ford to fit big-block V8s for the first time.

Convertible included: These changes applied across all body styles — coupe, fastback, and convertible — so yes, the convertible was reengineered to accept larger engines.

🔥 Engine Options (Non-Shelby)
By 1967–1968, Ford offered a wide range of V8s in the Mustang:

289 cu in (4.7 L) small-block (200–271 hp)

302 cu in (5.0 L) introduced in 1968 (up to 230 hp)

390 cu in (6.4 L) big-block (325 hp)

427 cu in (7.0 L) big-block (rare, high-performance)

428 cu in (7.0 L) Cobra Jet (introduced in 1968)

👉 Notice: Ford never offered a “350” V8 in the Mustang. The 350 cubic-inch engine was a Chevrolet motor. Ford’s closest equivalents were the 351 Windsor/Cleveland engines, which appeared later (1969 model year).

🚘 Why the Change?
Competition: Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird debuted in 1967 with larger engine options. Ford needed to respond.

Performance market: Buyers wanted more horsepower, and the Mustang’s original small-block-only design limited Ford’s offerings.

Engineering solution: Enlarging the engine bay allowed Ford to drop in big-blocks without creating a separate performance model (though Shelby continued to build its own versions).

✅ Bottom Line
Ford did increase the size under the hood in 1967, making the Mustang capable of housing big-block V8s like the 390, 427, and 428. This applied to the convertible as well. However, there was no Ford 350 V8 — that’s a Chevy engine. The Mustang’s comparable mid-range option was the 302 (1968) and later the 351 (1969).

Would you like me to lay out a side-by-side chart of 1967 vs 1968 Mustang convertible engine options so you can see exactly what was available each year?

but was there a demand to put the chevy 350 in them at the time?
Great question — this gets into the culture of the late 1960s muscle car scene.

🏎️ Context in 1967–1968
Ford vs. Chevy rivalry: The Mustang was Ford’s answer to the Chevy Camaro (introduced in 1967). Each brand had loyal followings, and cross-brand engine swaps were rare among purists.

Chevy 350 introduction: Chevrolet introduced its 350 cu in small-block V8 in 1967, first appearing in the Camaro SS. It quickly became a legendary engine because of its balance of size, power, and reliability.

Ford’s response: Ford enlarged the Mustang’s engine bay in 1967 specifically to fit Ford big-blocks (390, 427, 428). Ford enthusiasts wanted Ford powerplants, not Chevy ones.

🔧 Engine Swaps & Demand
Factory options: Ford never offered a Chevy 350 in the Mustang. The closest Ford equivalents were the 302 (1968) and later the 351 (1969).

Hot-rodders & custom builds: Independent builders sometimes swapped Chevy 350s into Mustangs (and other cars) because the 350 was cheap, plentiful, and had huge aftermarket support. But this was more of a practical hot-rodder’s choice than a widespread demand among Mustang buyers.

Brand loyalty: In the late ’60s, Ford and Chevy fans were fiercely loyal. Putting a Chevy engine in a Mustang was considered “crossing enemy lines.” It happened, but it wasn’t mainstream or something Ford would have engineered for.

✅ Bottom Line
There wasn’t a market demand for Ford to design the Mustang around the Chevy 350. The demand was for Ford to match Chevy’s performance with its own engines. The Chevy 350 became popular in swaps later because of its availability and aftermarket support, but in 1967–1968 Mustang buyers wanted Ford big-blocks, not Chevy motors.

Would you like me to dig up some examples of period hot-rod magazines or custom builds where people actually dropped Chevy 350s into Mustangs, to show how common (or uncommon) it really was?

here's why i've asked: i knew a guy in 1968 who had a mustang convertible and he bragged just a little that it had a 350 engine in it. i rode in it several times. it was fast. it had a straight front to back automatic shifter on the floor between the two bucket seats. it was noticeably a little higher off the ground compared to the 1965 289 mustang and seemed a bit stubbier but i've been told that is just the impression it made: a bit higher, a bit wider, even if it was a bit longer. it just appeared that way.
That’s a fantastic memory — and it actually lines up with a few things about the Mustang’s evolution in 1967–1968, plus the culture of engine swapping at the time. Let me break it down:

🚘 Mustang Body Changes
1965–66 Mustangs: Smaller, lighter, designed around the 260/289 small-block V8s. They had a narrower track and lower stance.

1967–68 redesign: Ford widened the body slightly, lengthened it a couple of inches, and raised the overall profile. Even though the wheelbase stayed the same, the car looked higher and stubbier compared to the sleeker ’65–’66 models. That’s exactly the impression you described — a bit taller, wider, and chunkier.

Convertible included: The convertible shared the same dimensions, so your memory of it sitting higher than a ’65 coupe is spot on.

🔧 Engine Bay & Shifter
Straight-line floor shifter: That was the standard automatic console setup in those years. The C4 and later C6 automatics had that straight front-to-back selector between the buckets.

Engine bay enlargement: Ford specifically reengineered the front end in 1967 to accept big-blocks like the 390, 427, and 428. So the car you rode in definitely had room for something larger than the 289.

🏎️ The “350” Question
Chevy 350 introduced in 1967: It was brand new, available in Camaros and Novas. Hot-rodders loved it because it was powerful, cheap, and easy to modify.

Ford never offered a 350: The closest Ford equivalents were the 302 (1968) and 351 (1969). So if your friend bragged about a “350,” it almost certainly meant he (or someone before him) had swapped in a Chevy 350 small-block.

Why swap? In the late ’60s, engine swapping was common among gearheads. The Chevy 350 had a huge aftermarket, and some Mustang owners weren’t shy about dropping one in — even if it meant mixing Ford and Chevy parts. Purists hated it, but hot-rodders cared more about speed than brand loyalty.

✅ Putting It Together
Your memory makes perfect sense:

The car looked chunkier than a ’65 Mustang because the ’67–68 redesign gave it that impression.

The straight-line automatic shifter was correct for the time.

If he bragged about a “350,” it was almost certainly a Chevy swap — not factory, but definitely possible and believable in 1968.

And yes, it would have been fast. A 350 in a lighter Mustang convertible would have been a real street sleeper.

So you weren’t imagining things — the car really did look different, and the “350” story fits with the hot-rod culture of the era.

Would you like me to show you a side-by-side comparison of the 1965 vs. 1967 Mustang dimensions so you can see exactly how those changes created that “higher, wider, stubbier” impression you remember?

i'm good. you've been helpful. thanks.

I’m glad I could help — and I really enjoyed hearing your story about that Mustang. Those kinds of personal memories bring the history of these cars to life in a way specs and charts never can. If you ever want to dive into more classic car lore or compare how different models evolved, I’d be happy to explore it with you.
Click to expand...
A big block motor never worked in the little Mustang. Way too front heavy. Swapping out the 289 for a Chevy 350 became popular years later. Back then (pre 1990's) it was a real rarity to see one swapped out. IMO the 289 (271 HP) was the perfect engine for that car. The real problem was the small radiator which tended to overheat with some hard driving. Caroll Shelby turned the Mustang into a bomb!
Click to expand...

Happy Thanksgiving

jay helfert
JAM said:
It's been a tough year for the pool world, as we've said goodbye to far too many of our stars. I’m grateful that I’ve had the chance to admire some of them from afar and others up close, as friends.

More than anything, I’m thankful that the AzBilliards Discussion Forum, the largest pool forum in the world, is still standing strong and growing better each year. On Facebook, it’s easy to feel lost while searching for pool news or trying to catch up on stats. But on AzBilliards, the members always seem to have the latest updates, often by the minute.

Coming to AzBilliards feels like walking into the home of an old friend, familiar, welcoming, and always up to speed. And for that, I’m truly thankful. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

A little holiday humor.

View attachment 865830
Click to expand...
Right you are Jam
Click to expand...

Capito Sports Bar - Angeles City

jay helfert
Quesports said:
Our daughter spent one year at Humboldt State University as a coxain on the men’s rowing team. Visited many times and the giant redwoods are a thing to behold. Even photos don’t convey the feeling of serenity one gets strolling through them.

Back in the days we were kids no one shared information on playing pool. You learned more by trial and error.

Good times Jay. Wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving!!!
Click to expand...
Right back at you Que!
Click to expand...

Do you want to learn more about your stroke?

Paul_#_
I sent my video to Matt at darkSIDEpool and got a thorough set of analyses.

It helped me confirm some of my suspicions that I had from videos that I took myself earlier. His analyses is an independent analyses and helps me remove some of the confusion and guesses over what the hell is wrong. This gives me confidence to concentrate more on those deficiencies.

Other parts of his analyses went way beyond any of my self analysis. Such as his assessment on my aiming and two types of error.

It seemed from his instructions for using his app that he wanted some proficiency more like an intermediate player than a beginner. Nope. Not necessary as I can attest. Don't worry about that. The setup was not time consuming.

Uploading the two-gigabyte video file was easy and fast to the website he noted.

Here is the report I got:

The camera angle was a bit narrow / low down but I've still managed to get you some pretty conclusive analysis and areas to help improve on. There are some tell tale signs.

Overview I analyzed your 10 attempts at the Stop Shot drill. The results were split exactly down the middle: 5 Pots and 5 Misses.

My goal was to find the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. The data shows that your technique is solid, but it falls apart when you rush.

Here is my diagnosis of your video:

1. The "3-Second" Danger Zone (Rhythm)​

The clearest pattern I found is in your timing. I tracked exactly how long you stayed down on the shot before pulling the trigger.

  • When you potted well: You took an average of 3.7 seconds. You looked settled.
  • When you missed: You rushed the shot, averaging just 3.0 seconds.
My Diagnosis: You aren't missing because you can't aim; you are missing because you are "snatching." On the missed shots, you are skipping the final split-second pause that locks in your accuracy. You are seeing the pot and firing before your arm is ready.



2. The "Steering" Problem (Left vs. Right)​

I looked at where the white ball finished on your 5 Misses to see if you have a "blind spot."

  • The "Small" Misses (Left): You missed twice to the left, but these were relatively close (9-13 inches off the perfect stop area).
  • The "Big" Misses (Right): You missed three times to the right, and these were huge errors (17, 22, and 30 inches off the perfect stop area).
My Diagnosis: Your biggest danger is steering to the Right. When you rush that final stroke (the 3-second issue), your arm collapses slightly or you twist the cue, sending the white ball wildly off to the right. The left misses are just normal aiming errors, but the right misses are mechanical breakdowns caused by speed.

3. The "Touch" (Stopping the Ball)​

I measured exactly where the white ball stopped rolling. Ideally, we wanted it to stop at the 24-inch mark (just behind the object ball)

  • Your Average Stop: 21.9 inches (About 2 inches past the target).
My Diagnosis: You are ever-so-slightly "babying" the shot at 8.4 mph. This causes the ball to drift forward instead of gripping the cloth. On your best shot (Shot #8), you hit it with more confidence at 9.2 mph, and the ball stopped dead perfectly. Trust your stroke—hit it firmer.



SUMMARY & HOMEWORK​



You have a "Kill Zone" in your timing. If you shoot faster than 3 seconds, your accuracy falls apart and you tend to steer the cue wildly to the right.

Homework I want you to play this same shot again with one simple rule to fix the snatching:

  1. The "One-Two" Count: When you get down, take two full feathers (waggles).
  2. The Freeze: Hold your cue still at the back pause for a split second.
  3. The Strike: Deliver the cue firmly (don't decelerate).
If you force yourself to take that extra half-second, that "steering to the right" will disappear, and you will start potting 8 or 9 out of 10.

For reference I've attached the data for your shots in CSV format. Waggles refers to the times you pull the cue back and push it to the cueball before taking the shot.

Please let me know if you have any questions but the most obvious thing I could see was just the snatching on the shot. Personally I would recommend a new pre-shot routine to help you get into a more consistent and deliberate pace.

From what I seen in the video it looks like you get down quite quickly from standing in the same spot. Try stepping backwards a couple of paces and then sight the shot in your mind when standing up and back further away from the shot. Then when you're ready to play step forward and down into the shot. Then get that rock solid waggles working for you and don't snatch and you'll see that consistency you're looking for.

Please let me know though if you have any questions.
Click to expand...

Predator Fanboys

cueball2010
SSP said:
No reason to chase the latest "technology" if you love what you have, I played like straight garbage last night and lost evey match, I didn't follow my whole shot routine like I should've, I thought this shot is easy too many times and the team we played is full of players who take the game seriously and have been doing so for decades.....my guess is it wasn't the cue
Click to expand...
It would be hard to blame the cue when you are holding a Becue in your hand... People look for reasons to lose. I'm happy you are happy with your cue and have one less scapegoat. Some people don't have that.

There is a love hate relationship with Predator like no other brand. I use to believe it was some kind of market manipulation that got me to drink the juice. But I think differently now.

These days I think for myself and others, it is about value proposition. When you are staring down 20 difference pool cue brands each with dozens of models, what really sets them apart? Which one to buy? Which ecosystem to vest into? $500-$1000 dollars is a lot to spend on a cheap cue. It doesn't sound cheap at all to me... So what the hell am I getting for this money? A lot of product pages look like Viking. Basically just say something like:
"The Element Series - EARTH – the steadfast soul of existence, grounding all life with wisdom and strength. Feel it beneath your feet—solid, enduring, alive. It cradles forests, mountains, and valleys with timeless grace, sculpting the landscapes that hold our stories. From fertile soil that gives rise to harvests, to stone monuments shaped by time and will, Earth anchors us in a rhythm older than memory. Dig deep into its layers, and you’ll uncover the silent power of creation—the keeper of secrets, the bearer of beginnings." - Viking Product Page.​
Not to mention that the website looks like its from the 90's. A lot of brands follow suit. What the hell is this?

Predator is one of the only brands I see actually detailing the pool cues with diagrams, schematics, blue prints, and explaining all the construction that you can't see from the surface. Especially when it comes to the butt. On other brands it can be difficult to even know what kind of inlays there are or if its just a graphic. I do see some other brands catching up though, like McDermott. I think others will eventually realize they can't just say things like "This cue is a breath of fresh air" and slap a $1500 price tag on it.
​
Click to expand...

Type of joint, material and pin type

S
gregcantrall said:
My first cue was a Huebler. It had fine threads and a nylon insert on the female side. It had a good feel to the hit. Hmmmm, I can't remember why or how I got away from it. Headscratch. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Have Huebler sneaky and an Action Elite with a good 1/2 inch of nylon or some soft plastic instead of the last half inch of the shaft. Both are the best to screw. lol The Elite hits good too. It's my go to shooter.
Click to expand...

Predator Fanboys

Paul_#_
OP OscarGrouch asked for differences in Predator's butts. There pro
1764165998071.png
bably aren't that many differences or, certainly not compared to something like comparing to a one-wood Schmelke butt.


Predator's butts have a core with four and at most thirty pieces of wood versus Schmelke's one.

Predator's notes there is no weight bolt connecting the forearm to the handle. Presumably, the cored butts are butt length less that occupied by weight bolt, joint and ring. Schmelke also has one long length of wood.

Predator's C10+ ten-piece and P3's 30-piece cores also use phenolic to encase parts. The C10+ uni-loc pin is encased in a phenolic core and this phenolic addition “also replaces other wooden components of the backside for greater stability and lifetime concentricity”. P3 promises “revolutionary stiffness and feel”; Predator boldly abandons wooden joint facing, bumper, and weight-bolt threads, replacing them with phenolic. Schmelke? I don't know if there is phenolic, but, if so, a lot less.

Predator has a wood core and a wood sleeve around it versus Schmelke's no sleeve.
Predator P3 butt construction_just 30 pieces.jpg


Predator's engineering is wonderful with its P3 having first 10 pieces of maple in the core, that's encased in 10 pieces of ash, and that is encased with 10 pieces of maple to make its 30 pieces of wood.

Consistency? Predator has very little variation due to differences in wood versus a skillful effort by Schmelke to minimize variation in final product. I think Predator's extensive development effort is mostly to produce efficienctly a uniform and durable product.

Here are some comments about Predator butts from https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/p3-vs-c4-butt-technology.555376/

4door said:
So I purchased a predator sp2 zebrawood with Revo, hoping it would be my "forever cue." (We've all said that before😂). However, the feedback from the c4 butt is WAAAAAY different than anything I've ever felt. It's not bad, just very different. Certain hits make a *thud* or hollow sound. I have used the Revo on a true splice cue and it was significantly different. I could definitely understand why someone would like that type and that amount of feedback. I just can't get use to it.
Click to expand...

4door said:
I think what is bothering me with the sp2 is that the c4+ butt has a significant amount of phenolic. Looking at the predator website, the joint is either embedded in phenolic or screwed into phenolic. Not sure if you've hit a c4 butt with a Revo shaft for 2 or 3 racks. You'd definitely know what I was talking about. I don't think I would notice it that much if it were a wood shaft. The phenolic seems to resonate through the Revo way more. Predator doesn't go as in depth with the P3, with it being their newest butt, even though it's far from new, so wasn't sure if there is phenolic involved in the business end at all
Click to expand...
Mokabear said:
I have the P3 bocote. It is a great cue. The only time I feel a ping or a weird sound/feel is if I miscue badly. It has a much better feel than my BK Rush, which is a C4
Click to expand...

ak1975 said:
I also have a bk rush, and your comment rings true. The feel of the BK is much different than the P3, but it smashed the hell out of the balls so i'm not worried
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Pool Ball Collecting.

Rubik's Cube
Hello again, Chi-Rack.

I believe the original Johnnie Walker box was just the generic black bubble box from China, dear chap. I won my own set at a tournament sponsored by Johnnie Walker and it was just in that plain box.

I stand to be corrected, but your ingenious upgrade is the best it’s ever been as far as I’m aware, sir.
Click to expand...
Load more

Filter

Back
Top