If a player drills a hole into (regular) chalk, they don't know how to chalk. If you look at the worn chalk in poolrooms the conclusion is obvious: almost no players know how to chalk. I think for the vast majority of players learning how not to do the hole-boring stupidity is far more important than the brand they use. And if you look at the chalk at major tournaments -- private or public pieces -- none of it has bore holes.
Also, because most players chalk badly, most players have learned that they cannot spin the ball without miscuing. "I never would have thought I could hit the ball that far off center," is a comment I hear very frequently from students who have been playing anywhere from 1 to 40 years. Sad.
Maybe the shape of Taom keeps players from doing their borer thing. Maybe it gets them to actually look at the tip -- which many players never do. If it just does those two things I suppose it's worth the price but maybe there's no reason for a second piece.
The anti-skid properties of Taom are widely reported. That is very important to top players. For them, a skid at the wrong time can be the difference between winning and losing because they may miss only two or three balls in a match or sometimes none at all. Any skid might cost them a game or two.
On the other hand, I've also heard reports of more miscues with Taom. I think John Schmidt and Oscar Dominguez were both using Taom in their just-finished one pocket match and I think I saw two miscues in a few hours of watching. Whether that was from the chalk or from lack of chalk or from still learning chalking technique with the new shape is unknown. One pocket does require a lot of at-the-edge cueing.
Also, because most players chalk badly, most players have learned that they cannot spin the ball without miscuing. "I never would have thought I could hit the ball that far off center," is a comment I hear very frequently from students who have been playing anywhere from 1 to 40 years. Sad.
Maybe the shape of Taom keeps players from doing their borer thing. Maybe it gets them to actually look at the tip -- which many players never do. If it just does those two things I suppose it's worth the price but maybe there's no reason for a second piece.
The anti-skid properties of Taom are widely reported. That is very important to top players. For them, a skid at the wrong time can be the difference between winning and losing because they may miss only two or three balls in a match or sometimes none at all. Any skid might cost them a game or two.
On the other hand, I've also heard reports of more miscues with Taom. I think John Schmidt and Oscar Dominguez were both using Taom in their just-finished one pocket match and I think I saw two miscues in a few hours of watching. Whether that was from the chalk or from lack of chalk or from still learning chalking technique with the new shape is unknown. One pocket does require a lot of at-the-edge cueing.
