Measle ball, i HATE it

I like the measle ball. Getting the visual feedback is a feature that I see a lot of people overlook. With a solid white cue ball you have to really focus on how it behaves off the rail to get an idea of the spin. With the measle cue ball just look at the dots. It is good information to get back.
 
I highly doubt anyone who is blindfolded and asked to shoot at the varying types of balls would be able to tell the difference even 25% of the time. It's sort of encouraging for me to try this experiment and ask 50 different pool players to take the "Pepsi Challenge" on this topic. Those of you who think you are 100% in tune with those balls would find how mistaken you are on the differences in balls is. Sure, there are differences, but I don't believe those differences to be great enough to detect them accurately or with any consistency.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
The blindfold would defeat the purpose, don't you think:wink: Actually, there is a difference. I'll be suprised if you give this a good honest try and don't find differences between the ballls. It is significant. Not huge, but large enough that it actually makes a difference. Also the aestetics are important. I don't like dots, huge logos or other crap on my cueball, and I can't get used to it no matter how hard I try. That is, I can play well with it, but I do not like it and I never will.
Click to expand...

Well, you mentioned differences in size and weight, and others have mentioned that the measle ball rolls more.
 
I enjoy playing with the measles ball on the prevalent faster cloth found almost everywhere. Red circles seem to play like pinballs, and on worn Simonis (particularly on bar tables) makes playing with the red circle practically unbearable to me.

I imagine this is akin to the "best break cue" issue... Everyone has a preference and there's no real wrong answer.
 
ideologist said:
The measle ball has the Carom finish on it, so it will slide/spin in place a bit more. It is dead nuts in weight along with the rest of the Aramith balls, definitely not heavier. The blue circle cueball that comes with the Centennial set actually weighs more than the measle ball.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Where did this info come from?

It seems like the cue ball HAS to be the same size, weight and material for the game to be played correctly.

I would love to see actual weights and any other differences between the popular cue balls. New ones, or at least unused of course.

Does anyone have a link to this info?

My older Centennial and new Tournament cue balls weighed 372 grams on my shitty little scale and my new measle ball was 370 and does indeed have a higher gloss finish than the Tournament ball.
 
Last edited:
desmocourtney said:
Interesting. Where did this info come from?

It seems like the cue ball HAS to be the same size, weight and material for the game to be played correctly.

I would love to see actual weights and any other differences between the popular cue balls. New ones, or at least unused of course.

Does anyone have a link to this info?
Click to expand...

There was a thread several months ago where several of us weighed QB and sets. I have a centennial set from 15 years ago, lightly played with and a aramith measle ball set from 5 years ago. The aramith set is more consistent in weight. The centennial set avg one gram lighter, and included the blue circle Cue ball.

The measle cue ball is perfectly matched to the pro set.
 
I don't care how much they weigh, they are harder to draw and play " heavier ".
Easier to follow than red circle but harder draw.
It gets magnified when a pool hall matches them with older set of balls .
I know one local hall got rid of them as they had too many complaints from players . They switched back to the opaque red circle.
 
Am I the only one who thinks its a placebo, and they all play the same... "When the CB and the OBs are all new and from the same box"?

I never heard Efren complain about the ball. And Shane just in his latest podcast said they are all the same, and that he prefers the measles ball because the audience can see the spin better.
 
The pool world is bi-polar it seems.

"9 ball is too easy, let's make it harder by adding another ball and making the table a foot longer and the pockets tighter! Also, let's move the rack up so it's harder to make a ball on the break, let's take away the jump cues, and call shot only! Oh, and break from the box, so there are no safe breaks! Oh, but the measle cue ball is too hard to draw, let's make that part easy and use this other ball that is .01% different."
 
Straightpool_99 said:
When the Aramith TV-Pro set first came out I was one of the first to buy it. This was the future and many enthusiasts at the club also brought measle cueballs with them in their case to the pool hall. It's been the standard ballset at most pool halls for many years now.

First impressions was that the cueball played "heavy", but that was to be expected, since most cueballs at pool halls have been worn down and therefore are lighter. Also I hated the colours but I thought I would get used to them over time and I have, but I dont like them. Even though I have played with these pool balls exclusively for many years now, I still feel that the cueball is not behaving "right". It's like a carom ball, no matter what you do to it, it wants to roll forward. It's not that I can't draw or anything like that, but the draw feels all wrong, and the stun shots especially feel wrong to me.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine invited me to play a game with a Brunswick Centennial set he purchased from the closed down pool hall where I used to play, and wow the good feeling was back, after all these years. It's strange that my mind could retain the feeling after all these years, but these were the pool balls I learned to play with. The cueball was plain white. It was not smaller or lighter it just behaved differently. Strangely when I look at a plain white cueball now, it looks smaller. It's some sort of optical illusion I think because I measured with the rack and it really isn't smaller.

I heard the new top of the line Aramith cueball is playing even "heavier" than the measle ball, I sure hope that is not the case. At the moment I'm practising with an old Joe Tucker aiming by the numbers cue ball, which acts closer to the Brunswick centennial balls than the measle one. And tomorrow I'm buying an Aramith plain white replacement cueball.

Anyone else feel the same way?
Click to expand...

Sorry about your luck. I bought my measle ball when it first came out as well. I have never had any issues that others bring up. This makes me think there was a manufacturing issue or there are fakes out there. I saw a photo of a measle ball that was clearly bigger than the object balls. Maybe it was the measle billiard ball (which pre-dates the measle pool cue ball).

Now that being said, if the comparison of your measle ball was to the Red Circle and nothing else, then that would explain the feeling of heaviness. But, comparing the measle ball to the other standard balls, I have never had any complaint.

Freddie
 
Straightpool_99 said:
Well, I may have been a bit unclear about it I suppose, English is my second language after all. I did NOT mean that I can feel the difference in my cue hand. It's more about the behaviour of the cueball after it's been struck. As someone said previously, the blue circle ball is actually heavier than the measle ball, but acts like a lighter ball. I too would be suprised if someone could feel the difference when blindfolded, but I suppose it may be possible.

You would feel the difference between acarom ball and a pool ball or a snooker ball and a pool ball. That I am sure of, but if the difference is only a couple of grams, then I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to demonstrate by reversing the balls - if you can draw more with the OB than the CB, the CB is heavier (or at least different).

I'm not sure why all CBs aren't lighter than OBs - makes the game far more fun imo.
 
I disagree... the aramith measle ball is generally very lively and will play similar to any other high end tournament set cue ball. Ive really never heard any complaints about the measle ball hitting heavy or feeling dead. Maybe there are some knock offs out there. With good rails and clean balls there should be absolutely no problem moving the measle ball with ease

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
 
Straightpool_99 said:
When the Aramith TV-Pro set first came out I was one of the first to buy it. This was the future and many enthusiasts at the club also brought measle cueballs with them in their case to the pool hall. It's been the standard ballset at most pool halls for many years now.

First impressions was that the cueball played "heavy", but that was to be expected, since most cueballs at pool halls have been worn down and therefore are lighter. Also I hated the colours but I thought I would get used to them over time and I have, but I dont like them. Even though I have played with these pool balls exclusively for many years now, I still feel that the cueball is not behaving "right". It's like a carom ball, no matter what you do to it, it wants to roll forward. It's not that I can't draw or anything like that, but the draw feels all wrong, and the stun shots especially feel wrong to me.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine invited me to play a game with a Brunswick Centennial set he purchased from the closed down pool hall where I used to play, and wow the good feeling was back, after all these years. It's strange that my mind could retain the feeling after all these years, but these were the pool balls I learned to play with. The cueball was plain white. It was not smaller or lighter it just behaved differently. Strangely when I look at a plain white cueball now, it looks smaller. It's some sort of optical illusion I think because I measured with the rack and it really isn't smaller.

I heard the new top of the line Aramith cueball is playing even "heavier" than the measle ball, I sure hope that is not the case. At the moment I'm practising with an old Joe Tucker aiming by the numbers cue ball, which acts closer to the Brunswick centennial balls than the measle one. And tomorrow I'm buying an Aramith plain white replacement cueball.

Anyone else feel the same way?
Click to expand...

If you use most cueballs with a different set, they will behave differently. If you are talking about the Tournament in your last part, yes they play tough, it takes a lot more to move the cueball around. You need to make sure the cueball is not only in the same weight and size as the rest of the balls in the set but also it's elastic properties match up as well so it does not rebound funny.

Also someone else posted that there are knock off "measles" balls which there are. The dots are lined up more in a square shape on that one.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I've heard about this problem, but I have never actually seen it. That is, I think I may have but I am not sure. Sometimes the cueball will visibly "settle" at a specific point on the table. I always attributed this to the cloth, but maybe it can be the cueball as well, at least some of the time.

It would be great if someone could dig up a video of this, I am curious to see. I have a really old Tv-Pro set. Unfortunately I sort of "baby" them beeing a 14.1 player and all, so I am not sure if my set has this problem. But I do have a stereo microscope with zoom. I bought it cheap on Ebay and repaired it myself but the prism for the photo-port is broken so I can't take any pictures at the moment. Maybe I can rig something up using the eyepiece. I'm dying to see this.
Click to expand...

I've bought a lot of measle balls.
The ones that are privately owned are still okay..
...the ones that have problems are getting pool hall usage....
...when looked at in the off-light, you can see the dull spot...
...always on a red part.
...and when you put them on a smooth counter...you can find where
it wants to settle.

We have red circle balls that still play well, although they draw a little
too easy now.

And our measle balls come in a sealed pack with the Arimith info
...and from a reputable dealer.

I'll try to get a cell-phone video.
 
SkyscraperChris said:
I highly doubt anyone who is blindfolded and asked to shoot at the varying types of balls would be able to tell the difference even 25% of the time. It's sort of encouraging for me to try this experiment and ask 50 different pool players to take the "Pepsi Challenge" on this topic. Those of you who think you are 100% in tune with those balls would find how mistaken you are on the differences in balls is. Sure, there are differences, but I don't believe those differences to be great enough to detect them accurately or with any consistency.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. This whole things sounds like more excuses of why folks "lose" or shoot bad.

It could never be "them". Their mechanics could never have fallen apart, they could never have lost focus during the match, they could not have picked the wrong pattern to get out, etc etc etc.

This is funnier than this cue hits a "ton" threads. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top