wow, facebook blowup

From my 2011 BCA Official Rules and Record Book.

The Balls shall be of approved composition, and have a diameter of 52.5 mm with a tolerance of plus or minus 0.05 mm.

They must be of equal weight with a tolerance of plus or minus 3 grams per set and a ball or balls may be changed by agreement between the players or on a decision by the referee.






Cardigan Kid said:
I was just adding to cj's example of other sports where equipment was changed and the pros had problems adapting.

The problem pocket billiards has always had was there wasn't a standard set up by a governing body. Table tennis is in the Olympics because it's the complete opposite of pool in that the balls, table, nets, all have standards and are followed seriously.

Regardless of opinions on cyclop balls, I reference the standard rules for table tennis...
03. The Ball

3.1 The ball shall be spherical, with a diameter of 40 mm. The ball shall weigh 2.7 gm.
3.2 The ball shall be made of celluloid or similar plastic material and shall be white or orange and matte.

Cut and dry. No pink or colors, no variance in weights. This cyclop debate is just an example of what professional pool is lacking-structure.
Click to expand...
 
I would prefer a non bias third party putting out that material instead of Aramith. That reads like a marketing piece and has no real data. I debunked their weight theory yesterday when I weighed my Super Pro TV Set and my Cyclop Skittles Set. Below are the results:

Super Pro TV Set: 1 Ball: 170g; 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 Balls: 168g; 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15 Balls: 167g, 12 Ball: 166g; Measle Cue Ball: 169g.
Cyclop Skittles Set: All Balls including the Cue Ball weighed in at 169g except for the 3 Ball which weighed in at 168g.

The Aramiths have a 1, 2, 3 & 4g weight difference across the set while the Cyclop only has 1g difference with ONE ball. Looks backwards to what Aramith is claiming. Then again, maybe I have the only sets in existence that are like this :wink:
 
I agree, pure marketing. The picture of the air bubbles could be anything maybe even water spots.

Back to my prior post, if BCA tolerance are plus or minus 3 grams per set, seems that most ball sets can make that standard.

Maybe the BCA tolerance standards need to be tighter?



rexus31 said:
I would prefer a non bias third party putting out that material instead of Aramith. That reads like a marketing piece and has no real data. I debunked their weight theory yesterday when I weighed my Super Pro TV Set and my Cyclop Skittles Set. Below are the results:

Super Pro TV Set: 1 Ball: 170g; 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 Balls: 168g; 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15 Balls: 167g, 12 Ball: 166g; Measle Cue Ball: 169g.
Cyclop Skittles Set: All Balls including the Cue Ball weighed in at 169g except for the 3 Ball which weighed in at 168g.

The Aramiths have a 1, 2, 3 & 4g weight difference across the set while the Cyclop only has 1g difference with ONE ball. Looks backwards to what Aramith is claiming. Then again, maybe I have the only sets in existence that are like this :wink:
Click to expand...
 
rexus31 said:
I would prefer a non bias third party putting out that material instead of Aramith. That reads like a marketing piece and has no real data. I debunked their weight theory yesterday when I weighed my Super Pro TV Set and my Cyclop Skittles Set. Below are the results:

Super Pro TV Set: 1 Ball: 170g; 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 Balls: 168g; 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15 Balls: 167g, 12 Ball: 166g; Measle Cue Ball: 169g.
Cyclop Skittles Set: All Balls including the Cue Ball weighed in at 169g except for the 3 Ball which weighed in at 168g.

The Aramiths have a 1, 2, 3 & 4g weight difference across the set while the Cyclop only has 1g difference with ONE ball. Looks backwards to what Aramith is claiming. Then again, maybe I have the only sets in existence that are like this :wink:
Click to expand...

How long were you using each set? Both new?
 
cardiac kid said:
Klone,

Just turned Seventy today. The colors are a problem for me. Only practice 9 ball with any nine balls out of the ball return. Only way I remember which numbered ball to play next!

Lyn
Click to expand...

Lyn;

The association to make between the two 'confusing balls' which for you, and most others, are the green 6 and the baby blue 7 is this:

Green = Go

That's what helps me so I know the green 6 comes before the blue 7.

My opinion on the cyclop balls are that they are not as good quality as what we see from Saluc.

I had a long discussion with Ivan at Simonis about this and it goes way beyond opinion, it's science.

For instance, there was on claim that the cyclop balls were made with a higher concentration of phenolic resin. This is not true.

Another big key in the mfg is the method by which Saluc *evenly* distributes the phenolic resin throughout the entire ball in precise, exact proportions. This proprietary method is not able to be duplicated by Cyclop.

With all that said, I have played with cyclop balls, even own a set, and they play pretty good to me (not their cue ball, though) but I am convinced that the Aramith Super Pros, Centenials, and Duramith Tourney balls all are superior products.

FWIW, the cyclop set I have has a cue ball with the eye logo above the finish, you can actually feel this raised. It may not ever make a difference but why have anything raised up on the surface of a playing ball?

After pasting about this previously I heard back from some who had the same cue ball and some whose cyclop eye lodo was smooth under the finish suggesting they must have changed this problem.

For me, this kind of flub causes me to call into question all other aspects of their ball quality that they would have *ever* released such a flawed cue ball. And then there's the translucence issue.

And oh yeah, happy birthday, Sir. :thumbup:

best,
brian kc
 
Tony_in_MD said:
I agree, pure marketing. The picture of the air bubbles could be anything maybe even water spots.

Back to my prior post, if BCA tolerance are plus or minus 3 grams per set, seems that most ball sets can make that standard.

Maybe the BCA tolerance standards need to be tighter?
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree. This is a case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Aramith is feeling the heat of competition (probably for the first time in ages -- they're green when it comes to fending off competition), and so that was a "reaching" marketing article.

Competition is good, and if it makes Aramith feel uncomfortable, all the better.

-Sean
 
Didn't the KO brothers play like God using Cyclop balls at the big CSI event. The Taiwanese and the Pinos could beat the Love Sponge using square balls. What crap!
 
Tony_in_MD said:
From my 2011 BCA Official Rules and Record Book.

The Balls shall be of approved composition, and have a diameter of 52.5 mm with a tolerance of plus or minus 0.05 mm.

They must be of equal weight with a tolerance of plus or minus 3 grams per set and a ball or balls may be changed by agreement between the players or on a decision by the referee.
Click to expand...

Nothing cut and dry in regards to color. Also "approved composition" is vague. Approved by who? Composition of what materials? And does international follow BCA? A lot of room for marketing specialists to create havoc (ie tv colored balls)
 
The day SBE, CSI, DCC, Matchroom, WPA choose to introduce SQUARE Balls to pro pool events. is the day I'll complain on the grounds that it is 'NO GOOD' for the game. :thumbup:
 
Perhaps Ms. Crimi would know.

But... back in the day when the BCA, which remember is a trade group, was recognized as the governing body (conflict of interest?), I believe they lowered the tolerance standards.

The reason being that any balls that did not meet the tolerance had to be discarded or used in a different manner. That costs the manufacturer money in the form of increased overhead &/or less profits.

Back then it was about the money as I'm sure it still is today.

I know some will not agree but 3 grams difference is a lot when the equation is Force = Mass x Acceleration. That 3 grams gets multiplied by a significant amount.

And then there is the difference is resiliency, bounce if you will, or grab or cling or stickiness or what ever one wants to call it.

IMHO, All 16 balls should be made of the same material & be of the same size & of the same weight & the tolerances should be very tight, maybe 1 gram for weight & 1 mm for diameter or even zero mm for diameter, & how about less than 1 gram for weight but...that means production costs would go up & how much is one willing to pay for a matched set of balls, so that affects profits.

It's about the money, it always is.

England seems to put some things before money. We were at one time somewhat like England.

Anyway, that's my 2 cent rant.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Perhaps Ms. Crimi would know.

But... back in the day when the BCA, which remember is a trade group, was recognized as the governing body (conflict of interest?), I believe they lowered the tolerance standards.

The reason being that any balls that did not meet the tolerance had to be discarded or used in a different manner. That costs the manufacturer money in the form of increased overhead &/or less profits.

Back then it was about the money as I'm sure it still is today.

I know some will not agree but 3 grams difference is a lot when the equation is Force = Mass x Acceleration. That 3 grams gets multiplied by a significant amount.

And then there is the difference is resiliency, bounce if you will, or grab or cling or stickiness or what ever one wants to call it.

IMHO, All 16 balls should be made of the same material & be of the same size & of the same weight & the tolerances should be very tight, maybe 1 gram for weight & 1 mm for diameter or even zero mm for diameter, & how about less than 1 gram for weight but...that means production costs would go up & how much is one willing to pay for a matched set of balls, so that affects profits.

It's about the money, it always is.

England seems to put some things before money. We were at one time somewhat like England.

Anyway, that's my 2 cent rant.
Click to expand...

We're still discussing the weights being off when it's not factual.....you can't fix a problem that does not exist. If folks don't like the colors that is fine, but adding they play different without any proof is just rumor.
 
Cardigan Kid said:
Nothing cut and dry in regards to color. Also "approved composition" is vague. Approved by who? Composition of what materials? And does international follow BCA? A lot of room for marketing specialists to create havoc (ie tv colored balls)
Click to expand...
If you really want to get spun up you should look into the table specs.

If we did there may be five different threads at the same time about it here. Lol

Remember the bca is more of a trade organization than anything else. Why put out specs that would cause marketing and manufactures grief ?
 
Since the Cueball is different for/because of Coin tables, how about a regular (same as the other balls) for non Coin Op? That would get rid of the translucence of the current Cueball.

In case you haven't watched the video of Cyclop and Diamond Reps, they stated that the Cueball has to absorb more light so the sensor can detect it and send it to the correct end of the table. This is the trade off so they don't have to make the Cueball bigger or put a Magnet in it.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Are the gold crown 5 knockoffs made in China the same as the ones here?

Click to expand...

I believe the GC5's are made in Brazil now .
Have been since the 3.
The knock-off GC's from China are surely not the same though.
And Andy cloths are not Simonis.:grin:
 
FWIW I've been playing with the Cyclop set for a year and a half. I bought a set at the BCA Nationals back in 2013. I can say that I have never had a problem with them and most of my friends who have tables in their houses use them now too. Again, without issue. I believe they do play better than the Aramith sets, just my opinion from having played almost daily with them for 17 months now.

So, see ya later Shawn, very poor form to rant your issues on FB. I highly doubt anyone will notice you're gone.
 
Just tossing an idea out here, but I wonder if all the issues people are seeing with the Cyclop balls are stemming from an early production run or something. Possibly the newer productions have alleviated these issues. Seems to me that would definitely be a question to find the answer to.

I come from a contract manufacturing background and it is very common for first and second runs to be 'buggy' so to speak and require tweaking. This is just the way it is in many parts of the industry. Also keep in mind, just because someone goes out and buys a brand new set of these, they may be 'old new stock' from the first production run sitting on the shelves, etc.

I think we've seen enough feedback to see that yes, there are/were obviously some sets of these that may have had some issues but many are reporting absolutely no issues. I know I received a set of Cyclop TV color balls for Christmas and after reading all these posts yesterday I carefully examined them, rolled them on both my table and a very large Starret flat piece of granite, felt for the cyclop 'eye' on the cue ball or any of the numbers and I could find no issues at all. No balls rolling oddly that I could detect, nothing. Granted I'm not a pool playing professional but I do have over 20 years of manufacturing and engineer experience.

Has this question been asked about there being 'older' and 'newer' runs?

Just a personal note...I love all the sets of balls mentioned, I also have a set of older Centennials and a set of Aramiths and I think they are incredibly well made balls, time will tell how I feel about the Cyclop but I can safely say...so far so good.

I can also guarantee you though that the first sets of Aramiths and Centennials probably had their share of issues too back in the day, that's the nature of the beast. If the Cyclop do have these issues as well I'm sure they'll get them worked out in time and we'll have a 'Big Three' of ball makers to choose from.

I also heartily agree with several posts here saying that change is inevitable. You see it in all walks of life, there are always those who argue that change is for the worse but typically it's for the better in time. I would wager that if the Cyclop balls DO take off and people do claim they play better, etc., Aramith won't be far behind to change their formula or whatever to compete with their own version of similar characteristics. This has happened many times in other sports where technology grows with the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top