Why isn't anybody in this thread referring to the older version of the Olhausen table as the Champion Pro table?
Wasn't that what it was officially called?
Wasn't that what it was officially called?
New Olhausen tournament model..................
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
Plenty of people hate how diamond pockets play. Rodney Morris being an elite pro that comes to mind. If olhausen pockets are “incorrect” then Rasson pockets are also incorrect.
Last I read Rasson pockets are the same geometry as the Diamond or close to but the Diamond has a deeper shelf which can hang more balls. The geometry of the Olhausens are off .
My guess is Olhausen has been completely out of the commercial and tournament space longer than Brunswick has, and no one even knew/remembered what they were called other than "Olhausen rattle tables".
Grand Champion is the name of the Tournament Pro predecessor.
Tons? Ok sure.
When I started playing about 15 years ago, I bought a Olhausen table. It was one of their furniture tables. The wife liked how it looked in the house, and at first, I felt it played OK. However, as I began to improve, I began to notice issues that caused me to question exactly how should a table play, and what was considered "normal" or "ideal". Reading prior comments it is obvious that what is normal, ideal, or correct, is personal preference. Especially when it comes to which balls should and shouldn't be accepted.
In my case, thinking about the construction of a table, it occurred to me that the contribution of the slate is pretty much the same for most decent tables and you can put on whatever cloth you prefer. So it came down to well supported/stable slate(s), rails with the correct geometry/appropriate cushions, and of course pocket angles. Things like flush pockets certainly add to playability. Colors, style, etc, don't affect how it plays and are secondary.
My final straw with the Olhausen came when I was kneeling next to the long rail, arms resting on the rail. I bounced a ball off the opposite rail and felt the entire table move. I gave the table away and got something that met my criteria. A frame that felt rock solid, correctly calibrated and solidly mounted rails, with properly matched cushions, heights, pocket geometry, as well as aesthetics. I don't see ever outgrowing my table again.
I do like the looks of the new Olhausen. I hope it plays much better than my old table, as well as many others on which I've played.
In my case, thinking about the construction of a table, it occurred to me that the contribution of the slate is pretty much the same for most decent tables and you can put on whatever cloth you prefer. So it came down to well supported/stable slate(s), rails with the correct geometry/appropriate cushions, and of course pocket angles. Things like flush pockets certainly add to playability. Colors, style, etc, don't affect how it plays and are secondary.
My final straw with the Olhausen came when I was kneeling next to the long rail, arms resting on the rail. I bounced a ball off the opposite rail and felt the entire table move. I gave the table away and got something that met my criteria. A frame that felt rock solid, correctly calibrated and solidly mounted rails, with properly matched cushions, heights, pocket geometry, as well as aesthetics. I don't see ever outgrowing my table again.
I do like the looks of the new Olhausen. I hope it plays much better than my old table, as well as many others on which I've played.
I think in the late 1990s it was actually just the Champion Pro table. I could be mistaken.
Price is in line. IMO the 7’ should have been made 40x80 play area like Diamond, Valley, Rasson, and Global/Brunswick.
DoubleEagle08
New member
It has been 11 months, does anyone who has played on this table since have any additional insights? Quality? Banking? Pocket geometry? Purchase experience? Thanks!
I wonder which rail rubber they use on the newer model tables? The Accu-fast rubber is 1/3 the mass and size of Artemis. The 12 year old 9’ Olhausen tables at our community clubhouse were just recovered with Simonis 860HR and they play slow. And yes, the pocket angles are incorrect.
I like the bolts, there and on the pockets, kind of the industrial look.
In the late 90's at one of the Tournament Of Champions they were using a Grand Champion. Earl was not real quite about his disdain for the corner pocket. Hopkins added that the players were having trouble with that pocket. The rattle.
DoubleEagle08
New member
The spec sheet previously posted answers this. Accu-fast K66 with height of 1-7/16. My main question is did the fix the pocket angles? One vendor website says yes but others do not mention this.
I played on the new Olhausen at the Hopkin's Expo in April. I had my own set of balls and was there about 1am after the exhibitors all closed trying the new Olhausen, new GC7 9' and 7', and the Rasson. I probably played about 30 min each on all 4 tables. They all played good. I didn't notice any issues with the Olhausen pockets rejecting balls. The GC7 was my favorite. But I didn't see anything wrong with the Olhausen.
This below picture was showing the parting line from the injection molding of the Olhausen pocket. It was fine, didn't bother me. (same as the GC7 9' and 7'). However on the Rasson, they put the parting line on the very top, and it scraped my hand. Was a poor engineering decision on the Rasson, and probably designed by an engineer that didn't play pool. I'm an engineer in my dayjob, and have had to design around sharp parting line edges many times. Putting it at the top is easiest from a molding perspective, that's why they put it there.
This pic below is the new Brunswick pocket (same on 7' and 9'). The PL is about 1/4" below the top. That's harder from a molding perspective, but much better from a player perspective.
Rasson below:
All the tables mentioned had a bigger radius here than the Diamond, resulting in a shorter shelf near the pocket facings. This leaves less shelf for the ball to hang up on. Much better than the Diamond shelf, IMO. I'm talking about the radius of the cut from left to right, it's flatter on the Olhausen. NOT talking about the radius "drop" on the edge of the slate.
This below picture was showing the parting line from the injection molding of the Olhausen pocket. It was fine, didn't bother me. (same as the GC7 9' and 7'). However on the Rasson, they put the parting line on the very top, and it scraped my hand. Was a poor engineering decision on the Rasson, and probably designed by an engineer that didn't play pool. I'm an engineer in my dayjob, and have had to design around sharp parting line edges many times. Putting it at the top is easiest from a molding perspective, that's why they put it there.
This pic below is the new Brunswick pocket (same on 7' and 9'). The PL is about 1/4" below the top. That's harder from a molding perspective, but much better from a player perspective.
Rasson below:
All the tables mentioned had a bigger radius here than the Diamond, resulting in a shorter shelf near the pocket facings. This leaves less shelf for the ball to hang up on. Much better than the Diamond shelf, IMO. I'm talking about the radius of the cut from left to right, it's flatter on the Olhausen. NOT talking about the radius "drop" on the edge of the slate.