Cyclops vs brunswick & aramith

fat Albert

fat Albert

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Are Cyclops Balls really inferior to Brunswick & Aramith Balls??
This is how it plays out !! I know Everybody is playing the same balls .. However is it nessecary or best ? It is like a PGA TOUR PLAYER player being forced to play the best Top Flight golf ball or slightly inferior ball instead of Titilest by far the most favored among the best Pros. Why would a tournament insist on that ? Only because a few extra bucks verse using the best equipment . These players could still win with Top Flight but would surely see some things they normally would not see as to the control,the ways ball comes off club face funky and inconsistant and balls hitting the green and reacting in funny ways. ( in comparison the same happens in pool with Cyclops Balls funny cue ball reaction. Skiddings funny rolls ect. If you polled all Pro Pool Players by far the favorite Aramith or Brunswick as with Golfers far and away Titelist. WHY NOT PLAY THE BEST
 
Could it be a 1 word answer:

Possibly ( Sponsor ).

In other words could it be that Cyclops is a sponsor of a so called event that decides to use the Cyclops balls for their event?

Just a thought.
 
Simple Analysis.

Diamond wanted something to go with their tables. They found Cyclops, and were "sold" on the product and the profitability of selling Cyclops balls. They became the Distributor in the US.

Did they make a bad business decision? Only they can say.

When you run a tournament, and Diamond is the sponsor along with Cyclops they have the say. With the lack of tourneys, and sponsors, all the players can do is live with it or don't play.
 
You know just for the record in other sports be it golf , tennis or so forth they sometimes have one or more good products and one that is inferior don't force a all or NONE . Diamonds are as good as any their balls suck
 
I agree with you except one major point. Golf isn't broke like pool is. So that couple bucks from a sponsor is a bigger deal to a pool tournament then it is to a golf tournament. They got sponsors beating down there door trying to throw money at them. Pool doesn't.

Also. They aren't inferior. I mean it's not like there pulling a set of Steve mizerak balls off a shelf at Kmart. Cyclops balls are an excellent product.
 
All I am saying is that if I'm a sponsor of an event and my product is Cyclops billiard balls then I would expect that my product would be used for the event. Same with Diamond sponsoring an event like the Derby, I would expect they would use Diamond tables and not Brunswick.
That's all I am saying.

Maybe someone representing Cyclops should respond to the playability and possible flaws with their billiard balls. I never used them I have Centennial balls on my table.
 
I just want to know what's so dam hard about making balls that we can't do it in 'merica.
For Pete's sake.
Sorry Pete.
 
itsfroze said:
If they were excellent people wouldn't be complaining about them.

Brunswick and Aramith Balls are as you say "excellent" that's why
you never heard people complain about them, when they were used.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I thought they were fine. The important fact is is pool is a broke ass sport. It sucks. But trying to support themselves with it aren't in a position to be picky when it comes to sponsors.
 
*****, *****, *****. It seems that's all people do when it comes to pool. Honestly, when it comes down to equipment, it's more about resistance to change than anything else. People are used to certain equipment, and don't want it to change, nor to even try something new out.

Also, it's a hell of a lot easier to blame new/different equipment than it is to accept crappy play and a failure to adapt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top