Balls are bigger near the numbers?

PaulieB

PaulieB

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was just watching an instructional video and during the section about the 9 ball rack the person mentioned that the balls were larger at the numbers than around the rest of the ball. The advice was, if your opponent keeps making the wing ball, to rack the balls so that the wing ball has the number directly touching the number of the ball behind it. Apparently, since the balls are slightly larger at the number area, it keeps the wing ball from "sliding" past the ball behind it and going into the corner pocket.

I thought this seemed a little odd, as I figured that the numbers were glued in and then the balls were cut/sanded/polished/whatever ... to make them perfectly round. Sort of like the way an inlay is put into a cue and then the cue is turned down on a lathe. I wouldn't say the inlay part of the cue is wider than the rest of the cue (unless you are talking about metal rings expanding or glue coming loose, which does not apply here).

Anyone ever hear this before and is there any truth to it?
 
I've heard over the years from more than one source that they wear less where the numbers are, meaning the diameter of older balls is greater if measured on the edges from number to number. I've has reasonable success in closing gaps while racking if I rack the trouble balls with their numbers touching each other. First I've heard about using the number to prevent a wing ball fron going in though.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Most pool balls are not round. They measure bigger over the numbers. This is how you can tighten some balls in the rack. Have the numbers face each other.:)

A top pro used to teach this on one of his videos a long time ago.:thumbup:
 
PaulieB said:
I was just watching an instructional video and during the section about the 9 ball rack the person mentioned that the balls were larger at the numbers than around the rest of the ball. The advice was, if your opponent keeps making the wing ball, to rack the balls so that the wing ball has the number directly touching the number of the ball behind it. Apparently, since the balls are slightly larger at the number area, it keeps the wing ball from "sliding" past the ball behind it and going into the corner pocket.

I thought this seemed a little odd, as I figured that the numbers were glued in and then the balls were cut/sanded/polished/whatever ... to make them perfectly round. Sort of like the way an inlay is put into a cue and then the cue is turned down on a lathe. I wouldn't say the inlay part of the cue is wider than the rest of the cue (unless you are talking about metal rings expanding or glue coming loose, which does not apply here).

Anyone ever hear this before and is there any truth to it?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I just measured about a dozen balls and I didn't find any difference. Balls do ware down though. A few I measured were as much as .010 to .015 smaller. I didn't have any new balls to measure but I didn't find any difference where the numbers are though on any of them. I have a few drywall buckets full of old balls from when I used to buy and sell pool tables. I always sold them with new balls and cues and the old balls just accumulated. I also measured the balls on my table that although not new are not that old either and they were the same where the numbers were as well. Sounds like an old wives tail.
 
macguy said:
I don't know, I just measured about a dozen balls and I didn't find any difference. Balls do ware down though. A few I measured were as much as .010 to .015 smaller. I didn't have any new balls to measure but I didn't find any difference where the numbers are though on any of them. I have a few drywall buckets full of old balls from when I used to buy and sell pool tables. I always sold them with new balls and cues and the old balls just accumulated. I also measured the balls on my table that although not new are not that old either and they were the same where the numbers were as well. Sounds like an old wives tail.
Click to expand...

I agree about the old wives tale, but will measure my fairly new Centennials and report back. I also have an old 2.25" set that came with my table, and a few old 2.0625" sets and will measure them too.

Dave <-- a precision measuring tool freak
 
That may have been the case 20-30 years ago but the balls have evolved.. I highly doubt that the Aramith sets would have this problem today... Jury might be out on the cheaper lower quality sets......

I have heard that tip for the 25 years I have played... The most recent mention I heard of it was from Danny D. He swears it worked in the old days and knowing Danny I have to believe him....

Chris
 
Good luck sneakily rotating the wing balls without your opponent wondering wtf you're doing.

A while ago I was playing in 9b league and because the two balls behind the 1 wouldn't touch each other,
I used my fingers to pinch them together while holding everything else in place.
Only took a second, wasn't like OBVIOUS about it.

"Why are you manipulating the rack?"
"Please don't do that."

Which video was this? One of tucker's?
I remember hearing it too but can't remember where. Seems borderline sleazy, even if it's not an illegal rack.
I don't like trying to toy with the rack to screw the opponent's break. Might as well
just go all out and slug it or tilt it, rather than trying to play the "hey technically it's legal" game.
 
CreeDo said:
Good luck sneakily rotating the wing balls without your opponent wondering wtf you're doing.

A while ago I was playing in 9b league and because the two balls behind the 1 wouldn't touch each other,
I used my fingers to pinch them together while holding everything else in place.
Only took a second, wasn't like OBVIOUS about it.

"Why are you manipulating the rack?"
"Please don't do that."

Which video was this? One of tucker's?
I remember hearing it too but can't remember where. Seems borderline sleazy, even if it's not an illegal rack.
I don't like trying to toy with the rack to screw the opponent's break. Might as well
just go all out and slug it or tilt it, rather than trying to play the "hey technically it's legal" game.
Click to expand...

Go to around 7:44 in the video. All of Pat Flemming videos are good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTjC6uvEPeI


Not an old wives tale. After 40 years of playing, I didn't know it and as soon as I heard it...I went down to my table and checked my balls. He was right. Measuring over the numbers was about .003-.004 thousands of an inch bigger.
 
PaulieB said:
I was just watching an instructional video and during the section about the 9 ball rack the person mentioned that the balls were larger at the numbers than around the rest of the ball. The advice was, if your opponent keeps making the wing ball, to rack the balls so that the wing ball has the number directly touching the number of the ball behind it. Apparently, since the balls are slightly larger at the number area, it keeps the wing ball from "sliding" past the ball behind it and going into the corner pocket.

I thought this seemed a little odd, as I figured that the numbers were glued in and then the balls were cut/sanded/polished/whatever ... to make them perfectly round. Sort of like the way an inlay is put into a cue and then the cue is turned down on a lathe. I wouldn't say the inlay part of the cue is wider than the rest of the cue (unless you are talking about metal rings expanding or glue coming loose, which does not apply here).

Anyone ever hear this before and is there any truth to it?
Click to expand...


on some old jacked sets of balls i have seen that. the reason is the colored area of the solids is softer and wore more on old Centennial's, the balls i'm refering to had well over 10 years of play on them, possibly 20, they werent round anymore, i have Mitoymo calipers and measured them, they roll straight, but are off enough to matter in the rack. If a Magic rack works then they are too round for this to matter-as a reference

and yes if you know how to work the rack a little the size of the balls matters, particulary the smaller ones. I have seen that trick used(2 seperate times by 2 different champions), I dont hit the balls good enough to make a difference, takes a pretty solid player to exploit what your talking about. A++ on the low IMO.
 
Last edited:
If it was enough to make a difference by rotating the balls, then wouldn't the ball wobble or roll funny?
 
ctyhntr said:
If it was enough to make a difference by rotating the balls, then wouldn't the ball wobble or roll funny?
Click to expand...


i seen old balls roll off to one side like the box wasnt level-when it was so it appeared

. but not so bad they wobbled, i'm sure they did just not noticeable with the naked eye, a slo-mo camera might catch it, and you would need frames of reference
 
I was told this same thing over the past year. We set up racks that were "dead" for making balls. Balls went in like they were "supposed" to. We then we rotated the balls to where the numbers were touching......and voila, suddenly the dead balls weren't going anymore. This was on a old, old, cheap ball set, tho. I couldn't really tell any difference with my fingers, however, as I ran them over the numbers, and didn't have a set of calipers on me at the pool hall.

I have to think this is virtually a non-issue with a high quality Aramith ball set nowadays, tho.
 
I measured a brand new set of Aramith Super Pros a few years ago across the number, across the stripe, and perpendicular to the stripe. I did this because I too saw that Pat Flemming Creative Edge video 15 years prior and remembered what he said. I come from a machining background and used Starrett Micrometers to make the measurements. Calipers are not good enough for this task and are just to get you in the "ballpark" when you are talking about machining.

The result was no discernible pattern.

My data is below. Note, this is for one set of Aramith Super Pro's value set (rempe ball included). You would need more measurements to be statistically valid. I also don't have a good number for my repeatability of measurements. The difference in diameter for each location across the same ball could actually be a measuring error. Also, this is only a brand new unplayed set. How sets wear over the years is a different question for which I have zero data.

Screen Shot 2013-05-24 at 10.42.58 PM.jpg
 
golubushka said:
Maybe I'm missing something...but...aren't the blue lines the longest for 10 (or 11) of the 17 balls measured...so isn't that a potential pattern in your measurements???
Click to expand...


I don't think so. Reason being the sample size. I'm not strong in statistics, but have worked with people that are at my day job. I believe 33 is the minimum magic number of samples for something to be statistically valid.

Of the 15 object balls, I count 9 blue bars being the tallest of the 3 values. I don't see that as a major trend in any direction. Also, the difference is extremely slight.

Each major graduation in the graph is .0010". Each tick is .0002". *edit, just noticed the screenshot of the graph I took is missing the tick marks. Basically they were tiny horizontal lines subdividing the major graduation into 5 divisions, .0002" each.* The difference between number and non-number measurement is .0001" to .0002" in many of the balls. This is difficult to measure consistently. I have my original data in numerical format and I repeated measurements of a few of the ball diameters. The variance I got from prior measurements of the same ball in the same location was in that same range.

That is why I put a disclaimer in the first post.

Furthermore, having done this, I know how difficult it is to get meaningful results. If someone just makes the statement the balls are bigger at the numbers, without showing his data for many balls, his measuring tools, and his repeatability, it is not worth anything.
 
Last edited:
Simple physics, really. Balls are bigger near their center because of gravity.
Gravity also keeps me from pissing in my face. :)
 
I have the first set of Aramith balls that came with my Olhausen in the 90's. The actual numbers are raised above the surface of the ball. It doesn't take a micrometer to tell, just your finger. The owner of All South Billiard supply in Chattanooga didn't beeline me until I brought the set in for him to measure.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Fatboy said:
on some old jacked sets of balls i have seen that. the reason is the colored area of the solids is softer and wore more on old Centennial's, the balls i'm refering to had well over 10 years of play on them, possibly 20, they werent round anymore, i have Mitoymo calipers and measured them, they roll straight, but are off enough to matter in the rack. If a Magic rack works then they are too round for this to matter-as a reference

and yes if you know how to work the rack a little the size of the balls matters, particulary the smaller ones. I have seen that trick used(2 seperate times by 2 different champions), I dont hit the balls good enough to make a difference, takes a pretty solid player to exploit what your talking about. A++ on the low IMO.
Click to expand...

From the MBR website

"Worn and used balls can be used with a tolerance level of 0.1mm"

Otherwise the balls may not be frozen... We saw this trying to use an old red/yellow set for The Accu-Stats Make It Happen 8-Ball.... No bueno..

Chris
 
I've heard of this for at least 25+ years. Late 80s the numbers seemed to ''rise" from the rest of the surface enough to be seen and felt.

I've used the number facing each other to see if I could get a tighter rack in a lot of requests for me to rack the balls for players that were wanting the PERFECT rack.

I am still using the Magic Rack a lot. IMO this has solved a lot of problems in the local 9 ball pool room issues about lose racks.
 
The only balls that are gonna really vary are gone be the super cheap pos balls that have no quality control or a ball that is very old and very worn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top