Search results

I don't know... the theme thus far has been about what keeps the tip in contact with the CB longer. Unless of course we consider the effect the RAM shot has on momentary tip compression... JV <-on the edge of his seat

So we are assuming the side spin is intentional...? If he's a developing player w/ strong potting, maybe he's merely figured out how to compensate for squirt his poor mechanics are producing. CJ's TOI was officially described as a "twist" of inside by the creator. Defined as so little side...

I've got $20 that says the next thread will be about the "swoop stroke"

I never had the privilege of seeing CJ play. Not a big surprise seeing as I've never made it a prerogative to play in the States. ...but from everything I've read. CJ was indeed a great player.

Finally an interesting tip thread... Thank you. Way back in the day I was a medium tip guy (morri). After having 1 tip last me literally 10yrs. I became a hard tip guy. No learning curve needed as we all know tip hardness plays near zero role in stroke/player performance. Fast forward to...

Mine could be dead as well. Honestly don't know... I think the contest could still be up in the air.

See that's where guys like us lose ground to the already wealthy... It's not about 'actual' performance gain, but merely what we can tell them to expect IF they're savvy enough. You got to play on their inadequacies to try and prove you wrong by buying your product...

I'm sure some nut job looking to fleece the pool playing public could dream up a CF shaft balancing machine and burn in lead weights to produce the "ultimate in cueing performance".

A couple years back I think, Patrick suggested I do the quoted above. I had three different tips available. New Soft (Zan) hard (morri?) phenolic (breaker) The end result...? It took some effort to compensate for squirt (varying shafts) but I managed. The resulting application of spin was...

Have reached the point of "S-tuned" CF shafts...? I'm holding out for one of those.

Bet my dad could beat up your dad

Myself as well... However I only really pay attention to how they developed the pattern of choice and what they did to manipulate the CB. Assuming if they didn't something out of the ordinary.

It's like buying replacement Mustang wheels for your Challenger and then wondering why they just don't bolt up...? I mean they're both 5 bolt wheels for a car...?

They are making it harder. You're allowing yourself to be convinced there's something wrong with using outliner examples of insanely dominate play. If everyone as doing what Filler did the last time out. Then there'd be an argument to have. That's simply not the case. The last example of...

Like everything else in this era driven comparison. The money was relative. It can just as easily be said that back in the day players should have taken the small money (compared to today) more seriously because there wasn't another $50k payday next month.

You've changed the criteria... originally it was "great players would be great players". Now it's champions... etc. There is a difference between the very best and great. CJ for instance was great, but no where near one of the best. Would Segal, Varner, Mizerak still have been...

$70...? That's amazing. Almost want to buy and play with one just to mock those 'heavy investors'.

This is an era thing that really shouldn't be discussed. However since we are. I think the blanket statement that "great players will be great players" no matter what, a little misguided.

wow that's a stupid comparison... 9 shots (excluding break) in a game that designed to be aggressive .vs. 37 shots on harder equipment in a game strategic in nature.

If people are going to hang their hats on pocket size, then they need to give credit for how tough it was to move the ball around the table. Even in that posted vid. Both CJ and Efren pumped some shots hard to get shape that are slow rolls with today equipment.