Balls are bigger near the numbers?

In the 1976 World Tournament (at Asbury Park, NJ), the balls were the special bicentennial design from Hyatt. I happened to bring my ball gauge -- two holes, one with the maximum permitted diameter and one with the minimum, which is to say 2.25 plus and minus 0.005 inches. Most of the 3, 5, and 7 balls hung up on larger hole when the eyes (areas with the numbers) had to clear. You can see where the ball hangs up by the light through the other parts of the hole. I assume that Hyatt had just rushed production of the commemorative balls.
 
Bob Jewett said:
In the 1976 World Tournament (at Asbury Park, NJ), the balls were the special bicentennial design from Hyatt. I happened to bring my ball gauge -- two holes, one with the maximum permitted diameter and one with the minimum, which is to say 2.25 plus and minus 0.005 inches. Most of the 3, 5, and 7 balls hung up on larger hole when the eyes (areas with the numbers) had to clear. You can see where the ball hangs up by the light through the other parts of the hole. I assume that Hyatt had just rushed production of the commemorative balls.
Click to expand...

Thats really interesting. The grinding technology to make ball bearings has been around for well over 100 years, using the same principles in that time. I wonder if it has something to do with the densities of the materials used for the numbers. Maybe they were different than the body of the balls in those sets?
 
iusedtoberich said:
Thats really interesting. The grinding technology to make ball bearings has been around for well over 100 years, using the same principles in that time. I wonder if it has something to do with the densities of the materials used for the numbers. Maybe they were different than the body of the balls in those sets?
Click to expand...
The eyes are usually pre-fab plugs that run all the way through the ball. It could be that they were just a little longer than usual to start with or were of a more cured and harder phenolic or .... I think the real problem is that they hurried. The rest of the balls in the sets (other than 3-5-7) had no problem or at least not as bad as +0.005+.
 
chevybob20 said:
I have the first set of Aramith balls that came with my Olhausen in the 90's. The actual numbers are raised above the surface of the ball. It doesn't take a micrometer to tell, just your finger. The owner of All South Billiard supply in Chattanooga didn't beeline me until I brought the set in for him to measure.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

My old set of Cents from the 70's did the same. The number and circle around the number raised. It is enough to feel with your finger.

I read where the earth in relation to a cue ball is more perfectly round. In proportion for the size the depressions are deeper and the peaks are higher on a CB. They would make the grand canyon look like a small hole and the highest mt look like a mole hill.

.
 
PaulieB said:
I was just watching an instructional video and during the section about the 9 ball rack the person mentioned that the balls were larger at the numbers than around the rest of the ball. The advice was, if your opponent keeps making the wing ball, to rack the balls so that the wing ball has the number directly touching the number of the ball behind it. Apparently, since the balls are slightly larger at the number area, it keeps the wing ball from "sliding" past the ball behind it and going into the corner pocket.

I thought this seemed a little odd, as I figured that the numbers were glued in and then the balls were cut/sanded/polished/whatever ... to make them perfectly round. Sort of like the way an inlay is put into a cue and then the cue is turned down on a lathe. I wouldn't say the inlay part of the cue is wider than the rest of the cue (unless you are talking about metal rings expanding or glue coming loose, which does not apply here).

Anyone ever hear this before and is there any truth to it?
Click to expand...

Yes this is true, I heard about this years ago from a very knowledgeable player - I was willing to try anythin' to keep the dreaded wing ball from being pocketed every time. It did seem to help as I never had learned how to cheat on the rack nor did I want to learn. Now the real question is how does it affect the ten ball rack which will be the game that eventually replaces all the constant arguing from the wing' ball problem associated with nine ball. I want to learn how to hit the rack more solid and park the white ball rather than be deceitful and try to cheat somehow on my opponent - but I prefer loser rack and don't care to rack my own that much.
 
Last edited:
Danny Harriman said:
Yes this is true, I heard about this years ago from a very knowledgeable player.
Click to expand...


me as well 2 of them, that play like you do. guys my speed cant do much with that knowledge unless i'm racking for them-then i know a few tricks. but racking for myself it dont make as big of a difference, i dont hit the head ball accurately enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top