C'mon. The post is a vague reporting of two obscure players that maybe a handful of members know of. To top it off, no mention of the game they played or where this happened (pool room). Useless post.
I think so. Take this data set of my Centennial sets. Set one was brand new at time of weighing. Sets 2 and 3 were bought used that have nicks and scratches in some of the balls. The kicks and scratches remove material which affects weight. Also, balls have been noted to shrink with time...
How do your Rhodium's and Platinum's weight compare to what I have?
All the new-newish sets (at time of weight) I have have a pretty tight weight tolerance and none are even at the 5g difference across the set. The older sets and heavily used sets are a difference story. If I bought a new...
IMO, the important part is the consistency amongst the entire set and the cue ball weight in relation to the object balls. My Dynaspheres Bronze and Rhodium sets (all phenolic) are the tightest of all the sets I own including Aramith Tournaments. Cyclops Skittles and Hyperion are right there...
We are talking about two different things. You can't just bring up the elite players and say that's the norm. As a whole, say top 100 professional players in the world the average is around 25%.
This is an excerpt from AtLarge's stats for the 2026 European Open
.
This is an excerpt from...
Never higher than 30-35% and only a select few were capable of that. I've been watching pro pool a long time. I stand by my 25% average amongst all professional players.
This dude is too concerned about breaking and running. There's soooooo much more to the game than that. The best players in the world break and run about 25% of the games on average. I'm not sure why he thinks his percentage should be equal to that for an amateur.
Spoiler Alert: Pool is hard.