Hohmann loses to Ko because of the Cyclop balls

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agent 99 said:
Glad to see this thread has reached a meeting of the minds in so far as that defective cue balls were sold by Cyclop.

No doubt special efforts were made by Mr. Helfert and Mr. Figueroa...

It's never too late to do the right thing. How much financial liability could be involved at this time?

Simply make an announcement that cue balls manufactured between this and that date will be received and replaced at no charge with the new ball.

It would be a good thing for Cyclop and all other parties.

Good luck and shoot straight.
Click to expand...


Courtesy of Greg:

#####
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Griffin View Post
I am confused by this post. It seems people want to scrutinize every little word and put their spin on it. No wonder people get burned out with the attitudes shown on these forums.

There was no intent to use tricky wording. Here is how it is - if you have a ball that is 'flawed' - send it to me. My goal is to help resolve any issues. Obviously I cannot fix the problem without the flawed balls in my possession.

Btw- the only object ball issues I have heard about are the 15 ball with a crack, an 8 ball with a chip, and a couple of other object balls with chips. Chips are caused by nails and similar other problems.

We are aware of a batch of cue balls that may not have been up to specifications. But if a ball is bad, it will consistently roll bad. The tv table roll offs last year were mostly caused by bad cloth pulling tension. After the problem was noticed, RKC re set the bed cloth which resolved that problem. Many cue balls do funny things the last turn. Dirt, or almost anything can look funny.

But to say just shot the cue ball and you'll see the problem is not very scientific.

So- you can complain of you can react by sending the 'flawed' items to me - I'm betting I get almost zero items. Because most if these comments are not based in fact. If you don't agree here is your chance to proof me wrong.

And please don't be suspicious-all I want to do is identify the problem, and attempt to make adjustments. I think of the these drama posters need to mellow out.

Mark Griffin
#####

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Courtesy of Greg:

#####
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Griffin View Post
I am confused by this post. It seems people want to scrutinize every little word and put their spin on it. No wonder people get burned out with the attitudes shown on these forums.

There was no intent to use tricky wording. Here is how it is - if you have a ball that is 'flawed' - send it to me. My goal is to help resolve any issues. Obviously I cannot fix the problem without the flawed balls in my possession.

Btw- the only object ball issues I have heard about are the 15 ball with a crack, an 8 ball with a chip, and a couple of other object balls with chips. Chips are caused by nails and similar other problems.

We are aware of a batch of cue balls that may not have been up to specifications. But if a ball is bad, it will consistently roll bad. The tv table roll offs last year were mostly caused by bad cloth pulling tension. After the problem was noticed, RKC re set the bed cloth which resolved that problem. Many cue balls do funny things the last turn. Dirt, or almost anything can look funny.

But to say just shot the cue ball and you'll see the problem is not very scientific.

So- you can complain of you can react by sending the 'flawed' items to me - I'm betting I get almost zero items. Because most if these comments are not based in fact. If you don't agree here is your chance to proof me wrong.

And please don't be suspicious-all I want to do is identify the problem, and attempt to make adjustments. I think of the these drama posters need to mellow out.

Mark Griffin
#####

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Sounds like Mark wants to get to the facts .. He has plenty of company here, I think that is what this thread is all about.

I did not know that Mark was representing Cyclop, and he may not be. Does he have a position or an interest in this business?

Let me know if you receive any cue balls Mark, I would be able to help in conducting definitive testing - I have access to the proper equipment - and this is easy. We need to shoot a signal through the ball and read the results coming out of the other side. This will reveal the true composition of the object in great and accurate detail.

I have an open offer, as I stated earlier in this thread, for any one who has a cue ball in question to contact me as I would really like to test these balls appropriately.

Please PM me --

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I was back at the Diamond factory when the tables and cyclop balls from the first generation of balls was made so i picked up a set of the balls and started shooting them around on the 10ft that was set up. While talking with Greg and chad while i was shooting the balls and talking about the first event these balls were used in and some of the complaints they had recieved about the balls being more difficult to play with, i pointed out a manufacturing problem that no one had addressed or even considered, which has since been changed as far as I'm aware and that problem was in the finish of the balls. I noticed that when shooting the object balls at more than a 30 degree angle i was undercutting the shots, so i started to look at why i was doing that, i know its been a long time since i played pool, but i still knew how to shoot the balls in the pockets....LOL The problem i pointed out was the the color of the balls was not out on the surface of the balls, but rather below the surface under the clear coat finish which seemed pretty deep to me. I was under cutting the balls because i was aiming at the color instead of the actual outside surface of the balls which resulted in undercutting the balls....Greg picked up on that right away as there was i quess quite a few complainants about missed shots in the first event using these balls....and thats the reason why....aiming point and contact point of the cue ball is in different locations because you couldn't actually see and aim at the invisible outside edge of the object balls when cutting at more than about 30 degrees angle....you were actually aiming at the color inside the outside edge of the balls.
 
realkingcobra said:
I was back at the Diamond factory when the tables and cyclop balls from the first generation of balls was made so i picked up a set of the balls and started shooting them around on the 10ft that was set up. While talking with Greg and chad while i was shooting the balls and talking about the first event these balls were used in and some of the complaints they had recieved about the balls being more difficult to play with, i pointed out a manufacturing problem that no one had addressed or even considered, which has since been changed as far as I'm aware and that problem was in the finish of the balls. I noticed that when shooting the object balls at more than a 30 degree angle i was undercutting the shots, so i started to look at why i was doing that, i know its been a long time since i played pool, but i still knew how to shoot the balls in the pockets....LOL The problem i pointed out was the the color of the balls was not out on the surface of the balls, but rather below the surface under the clear coat finish which seemed pretty deep to me. I was under cutting the balls because i was aiming at the color instead of the actual outside surface of the balls which resulted in undercutting the balls....Greg picked up on that right away as there was i quess quite a few complainants about missed shots in the first event using these balls....and thats the reason why....aiming point and contact point of the cue ball is in different locations because you couldn't actually see and aim at the invisible outside edge of the object balls when cutting at more than about 30 degrees angle....you were actually aiming at the color inside the outside edge of the balls.
Click to expand...

Did that include the balls that were overnighted from China during that tournament ?
 
realkingcobra said:
I was back at the Diamond factory when the tables and cyclop balls from the first generation of balls was made so i picked up a set of the balls and started shooting them around on the 10ft that was set up. While talking with Greg and chad while i was shooting the balls and talking about the first event these balls were used in and some of the complaints they had recieved about the balls being more difficult to play with, i pointed out a manufacturing problem that no one had addressed or even considered, which has since been changed as far as I'm aware and that problem was in the finish of the balls. I noticed that when shooting the object balls at more than a 30 degree angle i was undercutting the shots, so i started to look at why i was doing that, i know its been a long time since i played pool, but i still knew how to shoot the balls in the pockets....LOL The problem i pointed out was the the color of the balls was not out on the surface of the balls, but rather below the surface under the clear coat finish which seemed pretty deep to me. I was under cutting the balls because i was aiming at the color instead of the actual outside surface of the balls which resulted in undercutting the balls....Greg picked up on that right away as there was i quess quite a few complainants about missed shots in the first event using these balls....and thats the reason why....aiming point and contact point of the cue ball is in different locations because you couldn't actually see and aim at the invisible outside edge of the object balls when cutting at more than about 30 degrees angle....you were actually aiming at the color inside the outside edge of the balls.
Click to expand...

While I have absolutely no reason at all to disbelieve this, nor do I have any inside knowledge supporting or regarding this topic, the theory, and your explanation of it, makes all the sense in the world. Interesting!
 
Last edited:
jimmyg said:
While I absolutely no reason at all to disbelieve this, nor do I have any inside knowledge supporting or regarding this topic, the theory, and your explanation of it, makes all the sense in the world. Interesting!
Click to expand...

We've all learned to shoot at the edge of the ball....every one of us, but when the edge of the ball is invisible, and thick, you aim at the color of the balls because that IS the edge of all balls no matter how shiny they are....except the first generation Cyclop balls. When you pick one up and look at it, it looks like you're looking through an 1/8" inch of clear coat finish at the color, i know its not that thick....but it is thick, enough that you can't tell where the edge of the ball is with some distance and angle to cut the ball.
 
Cyclop balls

FWIW

Lou is right
RKC is right

The only issue was with a 2nd delivery of cue balls. We believe only 32 balls got distributed - it the only true solution was to replace all the cue balls- which was done.

I have not received even one bad cue ball. My opinion is there a lot of people grabbing at answers when only partially informed.

We did a lot of tests. Cyclop balls have more consistent weight than other balls. This thing has been beat to death. And it's 3years old.

And it's not 'all about the money' - we have some pretty critical people on our staff. So it would be appreciated if you try to stick to facts and not conjecture. Thank you��

Mark Griffin
 
Last edited:
Cyclop balls

FWIW

Lou is right
RKC is right

The only issue was with a 2nd delivery of cue balls. We believe only 32 balls got distributed - it the only true solution was to replace all the cue balls- which was done.

I have not received even one bad cue ball. My opinion is there a lot of people grabbing at answers when only partially informed.

We did a lot of tests. Cyclop balls have more consistent weight than other balls. This thing has been beat to death. And it's 3years old.

And it's not 'all about the money' - we have some pretty critical people on our staff. So it would be appreciated if you try to stick to facts and conjecture. Thank hou😎

Mark Griffin
 
Mark Griffin said:
FWIW

Lou is right
RKC is right

The only issue was with a 2nd delivery of cue balls. We believe only 32 balls got distributed - it the only true solution was to replace all the cue balls- which was done.

I have not received even one bad cue ball. My opinion is there a lot of people grabbing at answers when only partially informed.

We did a lot of tests. Cyclop balls have more consistent weight than other balls. This thing has been beat to death. And it's 3years old.

And it's not 'all about the money' - we have some pretty critical people on our staff. So it would be appreciated if you try to stick to facts and conjecture. Thank hou😎

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

Here is the real problem, Mark -- You said, "The only issue was with a 2nd delivery of cue balls. We believe only 32 balls got distributed - it the only true solution was to replace all the cue balls- which was done."

Now you may be correct, you may have personal knowledge that this is true.

However, apparently you are the only one who knows and that is the real problem.

Cyclop, and I have checked to the best of my ability, both on their site as well as their Facebook page, has never released a statement that would substantiate what you are claiming is true.

We know for a fact that Cyclop has sold defective cue balls.

What we do not know, because of lack of proper and ethical customer support on behalf of Cyclop, are many things -- in fact just about everything involving the defective balls remains a mystery to their entire customer base.

I do not have to tell you that a business's reputation is paramount to it's success.

Currently someone thinking about buying Cyclop will run a search on the net to 'check out' the company. They may even be reading this very thread. What they will find is that Cyclop was less than forthcoming and honest about the cue ball situation.

The fact that they had some defective product is no big deal, happens all the time.

What is a big deal is that in this particular situation Cyclop comes off as not being honest and trustworthy. Who wants to do business with an outfit like that?

This could all be easily put to rest if Cyclop would release a statement clarifying the situation to their current and potential customers. To do so is clearly in their own best interest.

At this time I would not feel confident in buying anything from Cyclop.
 
Can't get past the "...made in China by a Taiwanese company using US technology".....hehehe
That's enough bs there to make your head spin
 
9Ballr said:
Can't get past the "...made in China by a Taiwanese company using US technology".....hehehe
That's enough bs there to make your head spin
Click to expand...

Maybe this will help you understand something. Those NEW centennial balls everyone today likes playing with, sold at top dollar prices, haven't been made with the original Hyatt formula in god only knows how long, so you might want to think about Brunswick ripping everyone off selling those same balls today, but of lesser quality than the original ones....hahahahaha.... now guess who SOLD that very same formula to the Taiwan manufacturer, and why???? Does the name Hyatt ring a bell? All Cyclop is trying to do is take a step back in time and produce the same high quality balls today, that were originally manufactured way back before arimith started cheaping the original formula.... so, who cares who makes them today, i can tell you this for sure, no AMERICAN manufacture is going to make them....so, ask yourself whats wrong with AMERICA!
 
Agent 99 said:
Here is the real problem, Mark -- You said, "The only issue was with a 2nd delivery of cue balls. We believe only 32 balls got distributed - it the only true solution was to replace all the cue balls- which was done."

Now you may be correct, you may have personal knowledge that this is true.

However, apparently you are the only one who knows and that is the real problem.

Cyclop, and I have checked to the best of my ability, both on their site as well as their Facebook page, has never released a statement that would substantiate what you are claiming is true.

We know for a fact that Cyclop has sold defective cue balls.

What we do not know, because of lack of proper and ethical customer support on behalf of Cyclop, are many things -- in fact just about everything involving the defective balls remains a mystery to their entire customer base.

I do not have to tell you that a business's reputation is paramount to it's success.

Currently someone thinking about buying Cyclop will run a search on the net to 'check out' the company. They may even be reading this very thread. What they will find is that Cyclop was less than forthcoming and honest about the cue ball situation.

The fact that they had some defective product is no big deal, happens all the time.

What is a big deal is that in this particular situation Cyclop comes off as not being honest and trustworthy. Who wants to do business with an outfit like that?

This could all be easily put to rest if Cyclop would release a statement clarifying the situation to their current and potential customers. To do so is clearly in their own best interest.

At this time I would not feel confident in buying anything from Cyclop.
Click to expand...

Youre so far off base its a joke, the ONLY thing ANYONE cares about is that if they have a complaint about the balls.... is there someone that is going to resolve their problem... and as Mark has already said....FREE EXCHANGE....NO PROBLEM....JUST SEND THEM IN....AND WE'LL REPLACE THEM FOR.....FREE! That is what people really care about, and they'reall willing to support Diamond and Mark until someone provides a real reason not to. And just for the record, neither Cyclop, Diamond, or Mark OWE you an explaination as to what the defect in the cue.balls was....so, do YOU have some balls you'd like to exchange for FREE or NOT?
 
realkingcobra said:
Youre so far off base its a joke, the ONLY thing ANYONE cares about is that if they have a complaint about the balls.... is there someone that is going to resolve their problem... and as Mark has already said....FREE EXCHANGE....NO PROBLEM....JUST SEND THEM IN....AND WE'LL REPLACE THEM FOR.....FREE! That is what people really care about, and they'reall willing to support Diamond and Mark until someone provides a real reason not to. And just for the record, neither Cyclop, Diamond, or Mark OWE you an explaination as to what the defect in the cue.balls was....so, do YOU have some balls you'd like to exchange for FREE or NOT?
Click to expand...

Does Mark represent Cyclop? Does he have a position or an interest in Cyclop?
 
Agent 99 said:
Does Mark represent Cyclop? Does he have a position or an interest in Cyclop?
Click to expand...

Here's your rights. You have the right to buy any set of balls you want, including, or excluding the Cyclop balls. You have the right to exchange any of the balls you feel are not up to the standards you believe they should be. You even have the right to demand your money back if you're not satisfied with your purchase. What you DON'T have the right to know as it's none of your business, is who owns what or what involvement someone has in the Cyclop manufacturing business, and if that's the information you need first before you purchase something, then go buy somethimg from someone else as your business is not required. That's MY opinion!
 
realkingcobra said:
Maybe this will help you understand something. Those NEW centennial balls everyone today likes playing with, sold at top dollar prices, haven't been made with the original Hyatt formula in god only knows how long, so you might want to think about Brunswick ripping everyone off selling those same balls today, but of lesser quality than the original ones....hahahahaha.... now guess who SOLD that very same formula to the Taiwan manufacturer, and why???? Does the name Hyatt ring a bell? All Cyclop is trying to do is take a step back in time and produce the same high quality balls today, that were originally manufactured way back before arimith started cheaping the original formula.... so, who cares who makes them today, i can tell you this for sure, no AMERICAN manufacture is going to make them....so, ask yourself whats wrong with AMERICA!
Click to expand...




I like that the Aramith are made in Belgium.

They have a history of good products.......and sure enough......
 
9Ballr said:
I like that the Aramith are made in Belgium.

They have a history of good products.......and sure enough......
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, so you like a company that took the original formula of 86% phenolic resin when Hyatt invented the perfect pool balls which created the Brunswick centennial balls, cut the formula down to 56% phenolic resin cheaping the balls, then over time has raised the price of the cheaper balls more and more over the years, knowing they're not made the same as the original formula.....hmmmm, ok....i guess...it's your money.
 
realkingcobra said:
Here's your rights. You have the right to buy any set of balls you want, including, or excluding the Cyclop balls. You have the right to exchange any of the balls you feel are not up to the standards you believe they should be. You even have the right to demand your money back if you're not satisfied with your purchase. What you DON'T have the right to know as it's none of your business, is who owns what or what involvement someone has in the Cyclop manufacturing business, and if that's the information you need first before you purchase something, then go buy somethimg from someone else as your business is not required. That's MY opinion!
Click to expand...

So you are saying to return defective product to some one who is not working for the manufacturer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top