$25 for a piece of chalk is ridiculous!

[XxMerlinxX]

I sent another email to John at Kamui, this time inquiring about the possibility of a financial opportunity.

So does this completely different compound contain silver in it? If so, as the price of silver rises, will the price of this chalk also increase? Would you suggest Kamui chalk as a viable investment option?

John's response...

I like your thinking. No, the chalk does not have silver or lead in it. The chalk will go up in value as the supply decreases. If you can source the chalk from somewhere at a low price then you can resell it.. I know several people who are doing it.

This got me thinking further, and so I replied with the following...

Hello John,

I see that you are a shrewd and cunning businessman, however I too am shrewd and cunning. I believe I have uncovered what your new pool "chalk" is made out of, you yourself have given away your own secret in your last email! You last mentioned that as the supply decreases, the value of Kamui's "chalk" can only go up, meaning that there is a finite amount of "chalk" left. I believe it is no coincidence that the last space shuttle mission has just returned, and as such, you're "chalk" is actually some form of rare blue moon ore! Since there are no more space shuttle flights in the foreseeable future, your supply of blue moon ore has been cut off, and now you will slowly release what is left of your blue moon ore cache to the wealthy few.

To keep your secret, I will require you to send one cube of Kamui "chalk" to the following address for scientific testing. Perhaps, through the use of new cutting edge scientific methods, a way to create a synthetic form of Kamui "chalk" may be discovered. If so, I promise that Kamui will be in on the ground floor of this triumphant break through!

I eagerly await John's response.

 

[Itsnotme]

John Schmidt, the professional player and US Open champion feels otherwise.

What if people can do all the things that they do with Masters and more? What if because of this product the regular play gets more consistent and more fluent? What if the trick shots get even wilder now that the player has more control over the ball due to increased friction between the tip and the cueball?

Would you tell runners that they had to wear the same shoes that competitive runners wore in 1922? Or swimmers that they have to wear the same suits as they did in 1940?

These are two examples of equipment making it easier for the athlete to perform. The best is still the best only they have the best equipment to rely on. Is a Moori tip better than a LePro? I remember when Mooris were being sold for $60 installed and LePros were $10 installed. If a Moori is better how is it better? What does it do for you and your game that a Le Pro does not do? I could just as easily say a tip is a tip and that layered tips are for suckers and beginners. However we both know that this is not the case.

Lepros mushroom on me all the time. Mooris don't. Runners (and pool players) my wear or use whatever they want to... I don't oppose any athletes decision on what they wanna do. If this stuff works then good. Good for kamui and their success.

I tried kamui chalk and will say it's a good product. But I prefer a dirty shaft over a clean one(hehehe!). I like chalk dust on my hand at the end of a long session. I like to chalk up every shot. I prefer slightly used masters chalk cubes, not new ones.

The game of pool is all about preferences. Kamui is not one of mine and never will be. I'm old school, even though I'm only 28 years old. I still play with the first proper cue I ever bought (predator sneaky pete with a threaded joint and I sanded off the preadator logos) and no break cue. I do just fine with my set-up and will have it till the day I quit playing or die.

 

[BrokeHustler]

I just want to say how important good shoes are when you play pool! kamui should make shoes

 

[Roadie]

There's nothing wrong with stereotyping if it has nothing to do with race, gender, or whatever else people these days get butt hurt over. Its the same thing as warning people who buy cars from yugoslavia.

Fact of the matter is, Chinese products are often found contain harmful chemicals and are generally unregulated and its usually found out when somebody gets sick or dies of it.

Japan on the other hand has product regulation on a similar or higher level than the US.

And the other fact is that the vast majority of products which are defective or potentially harmful are not discovered until someone is harmed. That holds true for just about every human action and product built by humans.

China is the scapegoat of the moment but in fact you will find recalls of products across the board for health and safety reasons that span the world to include a lot of products made in the USA. No where on the planet are there regulators standing in every factory insuring that all rules and standards are followed.

The overwhelming majority of products made in China are safe. While it is incredibly important to identify and stop the ones which aren't it is also important that people understand that the dangerous ones are well in the minority.

If you honestly think Japan is so much better then perhaps you would like to explain the scandal surrounding the Fukishima crisis? Now it is widely known that the plants were horribly mismanaged and safety issues deliberately covered up for most of the past decade. It took a devastating event to uncover this possibly criminal mishandling though.

 

[jimmyg]

I just want to say how important good shoes are when you play pool! kamui should make shoes

Yep, $5,000.00 shoes to go with the $1,000.00 socks. You'll never miss.

J

 

[Roadie]

This is a strawman argument and unnecessary to the discussion. Products existing below baseline are trivial to the conversation.

Not if people want to make the claim that there is no significant performance difference between Masters and Kamui or that such difference is too small to be worth the price.

 

[brophog]

Not if people want to make the claim that there is no significant performance difference between Masters and Kamui or that such difference is too small to be worth the price.

Read my post again.

 

[Roadie]

Lepros mushroom on me all the time. Mooris don't. Runners (and pool players) my wear or use whatever they want to... I don't oppose any athletes decision on what they wanna do. If this stuff works then good. Good for kamui and their success.

I tried kamui chalk and will say it's a good product. But I prefer a dirty shaft over a clean one(hehehe!). I like chalk dust on my hand at the end of a long session. I like to chalk up every shot. I prefer slightly used masters chalk cubes, not new ones.

The game of pool is all about preferences. Kamui is not one of mine and never will be. I'm old school, even though I'm only 28 years old. I still play with the first proper cue I ever bought (predator sneaky pete with a threaded joint and I sanded off the preadator logos) and no break cue. I do just fine with my set-up and will have it till the day I quit playing or die.

And that is perfectly ok. However your equipment setup is a prime example of the validity of the argument for products that raise the bar. You say that the Predator is the first proper cue you ever bought. In fact though Predator is a company which was built on the premise that existing cues, to include George Balabuska, Szamboti, Schon, etc...are all inferior to the laminated shaft/low weight tip end construction they invented.

When they debuted the shafts were on average 3x costlier than conventional shafts. They had to spend a lot of time convincing consumers that their product provided a performance advantage over single piece maple shafts. And even today 20 years later people still debate Predator's claims and many people do not feel that Predator shafts constitute a proper cue at all.

So in fact you are quite new school in this respect.

 

[Roadie]

Read my post again.

No need. I choose to include all levels of chalk for comparison. I can accept your idea that Masters should be the baseline of what is acceptable to use for a decent experience. But that does not mean that one cannot use products which are below that standard for comparison in the discussion. Those products exist and are widely available unfortunately.

The fact is that the person who wants to tell me that I will have no advantage by using Kamui chalk, when in fact they don't know that, backtracks quickly when their advantage of using Masters is taken away by the forced use of Sportcraft chalk.

Not a strawman argument at all. If one can claim that one product is not and cannot be better then one should be willing to use any brand of that product without hesitation no matter the stakes.

 

[brophog]

But that does not mean that one cannot use products which are below that standard for comparison in the discussion. Those products exist and are widely available unfortunately.

Unless there is a reason to do so, then it means exactly that. Any of the chalks one would consider a current baseline are all both readily available and cheap enough to exclude lower options in the conversation.

Using Sportcraft is a strawman. So is the argument that not using chalk is worse than using chalk. They're the same logical argument: Since B is better than A, then there must exist C which is better than B.

That is not a true statement. Even if there exists an absolute difference between B and C, then that also does not guarantee a relative difference between B and C.

Therefore, attempting to show any relative performance difference between either no chalk, or below baseline chalk to current baseline chalk has no logical application to this problem. They are strawman arguments, attempting to replace the problem of performance testing between baseline and Kamui (the actual argument, and one no one has any evidence for) with one that appears logically equivalent (Sportcraft to baseline, an anecdote most would not oppose).

The only way to suggest that Sportcraft in this case is relevant, given the price and availability similarity with currently acceptable baseline chalks, is to argue that it is indeed a baseline performer as well, but that nullifies the attempted argument.

 

[Roadie]

Roadie, you are dramatizing this issue now, just like you did with your counter example. Let's all come back down to earth now, shall we?

In my example, I was claiming that taking your family out to dinner for about the same money that you would spend on a chalk would make you happier.

What if it turns out to be a crappy dinner and you have and argument with your wife. Then you make the statement, "I should have just spent the $25 bucks on chalk instead!" Spending on that dinner won't make you happier.

The point is that you seem to be making a moral and value judgement by introducing a false choice. Family time vs. an equipment investment. If the choice had been between 25 for dinner or 25 for a single ticket to see the Blondie reunion then clearly most people would agree that family time is the better choice absent arguments of course.

The inference I drew from your post was that there are better things to spend $25 on and people who frivolously spend 25 on a single cube of chalk are immoral and not as good a person as you are.

In fact there is always something better to spend money on no matter what the purchase is. Knowing that does not mean that a person who chooses to spend the money on the chalk is a bad person.

I could come back and say to you that I saved the $25 I would have spent going out for dinner and stayed home to cook for my family instead making it a family event where everyone participated. Would that make me a better person than you because I chose to invest my time in a better way than you did (in my opinion of course).

So I respectfully disagree. The dramatizing of the debate began with tossing out a moral bone which I feel you did. I merely tossed a hypothetical back to you based on a professional player's assessment of the potential value benefit to him if the chalk would meet a minimum of performance increase.

I think this is quite realistic. In fact, I think most of the people here who do not believe in the magics of the Kamui chalk would agree with this. Not only they would agree, but they would actually go out there and "do it". Because they can.

My apologies but I do not understand the point here.

In your example, you relied on Mr. Schmidt's comment on the Kamui chalk that it could actually make you win a tournament, by preventing you from miscuing. In turn, you were taking your family out for a vacation with the money that you won in this hypothetical tournament. This, although statistically possible, is far from actually happening. But you argued that your counter-example is equally "valid". Rhetorically speaking, I agree with you lol...

No sir. I posited a hypothetical outcome just as you did. Your hypothetical was that you assume that taking a family out to dinner results in happiness. My hypothetical included the possible outcome that based on making fewer mistakes I would earn more money and thus recoup the investment in chalk with profits to then be invested in family time. My scenario was based on the expectation that Kamui chalk performs as advertised and reduces my miscues.

If Mr. Schmidt actually believes in what he was saying, I think he found the one thing that would give him the edge over other top pros in the tournaments that he will be partaking. I think Efren, Earl, Shane, and most other top pros in those tournaments will still stick with the red cube available to them on the tables.

So you think that John Schmidt was lying about how he feels the value of reducing miscues is to him as a professional player? Why don't you think that all professional players wouldn't want to have this same reduction?

Hence, I think we will have to wait and see if it actually happens. Until then, I won't argue over hypothetical arguments that are only statistically possible and rely on "pro comments" being passed by somebody on the internet...

Fair enough. And by the same token I will not allow myself to be guilt-tripped out of buying chalk because you put up a moral judgement choice.

I suggest you read the link in your signature in the meantime

Good point. Because it is pointless to debate hypotheticals when in fact the means to get proper data is readily available.

 

[SeanC]

What if it turns out to be a crappy dinner and you have and argument with your wife.

LOL!!! What if we have a deadly car accident on the way to dinner?

What if the same happens on the way back?

What if Kamui chalk sticks in your lungs blocking your airways?

See my drift here? I don't argue over assumptions. My dinner with my family actually happened, unlike Mr. Schmidt's or your winning the hypothetical tournament. Show some of the data you claim exist. Show somebody won a tournament because they used the Kamui chalk.

G'night to you :thumbup:

 

[The Chinchilla]

A lot has been said in this thread, but i'm convinced there are two general ways of thinking here:

1) You are one who believes that money can improve your game. The more I spend, the better I will play. We see it in every sport.

2) You believe that hard work and dedication to you sport is how to improve. You don't believe there are any short cuts, and you're ready to get in there and do the work.

Having said that, I don't think there is anything wrong with people buying the chalk. If you enjoy it, the more power to ya, really. Lastly, if this stuff really outperforms chalk, well, it's probably not even chalk!

 

[plhlolelnlilx]

I'd read reports of people shooting 50, 60+ balls without having to rechalk, so I decided to do a test. I chalked thoroughly then started running racks. Ok, running racks is a bit generous given my playing ability, but I did limp through 5 full racks without so much as an issue. That's at least 50 shots, and given how I was shooting, probably closer to 100. Even at the end I was shooting draw shots confidently and without issue. In fact, I was getting more action on the cue ball despite 60+ shots since my last chalking than I do with a fresh Blue-Diamond-chalked tip (or, for that matter, master's).

This is exceptional and the review is very detailed.

I have a few questions regarding the information and mean no disrespect by asking as I believe every product review is very important regardless of playing ability.

You mentioned you were a "B" player -
What would you rate your ability on a scale of 1-10 to consistently apply extreme english to any sector of the cue ball?

When playing your sets or practicing, did you notice excessive residual chalk left on the cloth or cue ball?

What would you say you noticed as a difference between Master's blue and Blue diamond when you used them?

 

[12ozCurl]

What if Kamui chalk sticks in your liver blocking your airways?

I think someone failed anatomy 101. Ya know...I have access to Duke's Gross Anatomy Lab....I could teach you some things if you want!

 

[Fatboy]

IF you chalk up every shot, which is part of our pre shot routine, there is some build up and you have to clean/wipe the shaft.

I have a cube in my case, but do not use it anymore for that reason. When I did use the Kamui it worked fine.

I have to chalk up every shot, its just what I do. I couldnt imagine being in action and not chalking up. I did chalk up every shot with Kamui and it lasts real good. Betting like you do an I do $25 is nothing and IMO worth it as I like the way the tip bites the ball with Kamui chalk. When I play alone I stopped using it because I was getting it all over the table, I cant play with out chalking up every shot, its a pre-shot routine and with out it I'm finished. I never had any build up on my shaft. But I use more talc than any living person so thats probably why I didnt see a issue that.

best
eric:smile:

 

[Roadie]

Unless there is a reason to do so, then it means exactly that. Any of the chalks one would consider a current baseline are all both readily available and cheap enough to exclude lower options in the conversation.

Using Sportcraft is a strawman. So is the argument that not using chalk is worse than using chalk. They're the same logical argument: Since B is better than A, then there must exist C which is better than B.

That is not a true statement. Even if there exists an absolute difference between B and C, then that also does not guarantee a relative difference between B and C.

Therefore, attempting to show any relative performance difference between either no chalk, or below baseline chalk to current baseline chalk has no logical application to this problem. They are strawman arguments, attempting to replace the problem of performance testing between baseline and Kamui (the actual argument, and one no one has any evidence for) with one that appears logically equivalent (Sportcraft to baseline, an anecdote most would not oppose).

The only way to suggest that Sportcraft in this case is relevant, given the price and availability similarity with currently acceptable baseline chalks, is to argue that it is indeed a baseline performer as well, but that nullifies the attempted argument.

Actually no one has tested Sportcraft chalk that I know of. I am assuming that most good players though are familiar with it enough to know that it sucks.

The argument is not as you posed it, "Using Sportcraft is a strawman. So is the argument that not using chalk is worse than using chalk. They're the same logical argument: Since B is better than A, then there must exist C which is better than B."

The argument is that B is better than A and therefore it is POSSIBLE that C is better than B. The point being that unlike the conclusive statements not based on fact or experience that some have made that it's all hype with no substance there does exist a current example of two brands which most good players know have a vast performance gulf. I.e. the mere existence of A and B with B being clearly better allows for the possibility that a C,D or E brand can come along that is marginally or vastly superior to B.

 

[SeanC]

I think someone failed anatomy 101. Ya know...I have access to Duke's Gross Anatomy Lab....I could teach you some things if you want!

Fixed before your post. In my native language, which doesn't happen to be English, "liver" is used for both lungs and liver. Sorry my "English" anatomy is not up to your standards

 

[12ozCurl]

Fixed before your post. In my native language, which doesn't happen to be English, "liver" is used for both lungs and liver. Sorry my "English" anatomy is not up to your standards

Remind me not to have emergency surgery in your country.....

 

[Roadie]

No, what I said is entirely correct, as refrained by the rest of your message.

While longevity is no excuse for lack of change, there does not exist any evidence that a statistically significant performance advantage can be gained from the baseline products already on the market. That doesn't say there aren't other advantages to be gained, nor does that statement exclude the idea that a product can be deemed 'better' than another.


The conversation has been productive, but stalled because it is lost in a series of 'what ifs', 'maybes', and 'assumptions'. All seem to agree that we have adequate friction modifiers on the market to treat as a baseline. Hence, the argument from many being that 'chalk is just chalk' is a simple revelation of this fact. That statement should not be taken as all chalks are created equal, but a declaration that the baseline performance has generated the necessary results.

The problem is generating a statistically significant increase in performance from one friction modifier (baseline) to another as evidence. This is easier said than done, specifically for the reason many give for the purported advantage: the variance between any two top players is very, very close. Be very, very careful with any argument assuming an increase in performance for this reason.

For the most part we agree. If the variance between two top players is very close though then any increase in performance of one over the other is magnified.

One could make the argument that Earl Strickland's specially modified cue which he used in the ten ball match with Shane Van Boeing on the 10 ft table gave him enough of an edge to win that match decisively by not forcing him into uncomfortable positions as much as he would have been with the use of a standard length cue. Do you disagree? Would you think that the outcome would have been different if both players had used the same length of cue? I believe that it would have been.