Ball????

J

James2003

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I really favor the Centennials. But if I were to buy the Aramith is there really a difference in the Super pro and tournament set? At $75 more in price I would hope there is a bigger difference other than the number style.


Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Tournaments use Aramiths highest grade of phenolic resin, "Duramith". Well worth it (and they love k awesome to boot)
 
I have the tournaments at home and I agree with pocket, they are worth the extra few bucks. Great set of balls and beautiful as ever. I have the TV colours as they are nicer to my eye :smile:
 
The Super Pro Cup TV actually scratch too easily for me...
The Tournaments look stunning and have a stunning finish. Very very constant feel.

Cheers,
M
 
If I recall correctly in addition to Aramith using their best material in the top of the line tournament balls they are also weight matched within 1 gram.

Great set. I have one I use at home and use the Super when I go to places I know have crap balls.
 
Like the others have said, the Tournaments are head and shoulders above the rest, I have a set along with Centennials and Cyclops skittles color. The Tournaments hold their shine much longer than the others.
 
James2003 said:
I really favor the Centennials. But if I were to buy the Aramith is there really a difference in the Super pro and tournament set? At $75 more in price I would hope there is a bigger difference other than the number style.


Thanks in advance for any help.
Click to expand...

It could be just the design. In the carom world there are 4 different sets of balls made identically (according to a response to an email query I sent to Aramith) in their top line.

Old School (classic 2 whites, one with a black dot, with a maroon) 61.42

Tournament (a white, a yellow and a red - no spots) 68.08

Pro Cup (white and yellow measled with solid red) 95.43

Pro Cup Elite (all three balls are measled - bacame the top level tournament standard on 1/1/2016) 109.27

(all prices in euro taken from kozoom)

Here is my email exchange with Aramith:

Just a follow-up on this. I sent this a query to Aramith:

Quote:
Do all of the carom balls in the "Super Aramith" line share the same
materials, manufacturing process, and quality controls?

In other words, other than the spots on 2 or all three balls, is there a
playability or durability difference between the Super Aramith balls that
are designated Pro Cup and the Super Aramith balls that do not have the Pro
Cup designation, such as the Tournament or Traditional?

Thanks for your response.
and I got this reply:

Quote:
Dear Sir,

Thank you for your e.mail received during our closing for the Holiday Season.

Yes, all the Carom Super Aramith line shares the same materials, manufacturing process and qulity controls.
No, there is no difference in playability or durability between the Super Aramith balls.

Hoping this answers your request,

Best regards.

ARAMITH - BELGIUM
Click to expand...
 
I have only played with the tournamet set omce and in my experience, it played notably different from the super pros.
 
beneath_the_sur said:
im going with the premier set on my next table, ive had teh best, now ill try the rest
Click to expand...

If you want Aramith's third or fourth best set, then the Premier set is a fine choice. If you want the absolute best without exception, then you want their Tournament set. I've got the Tournament set and the Super Pro's. The tourney's are the best, hold shine longer as others have said, etc.

You can read about them here, with Aramith listing pro's and con's of each set:
 
James2003 said:
I really favor the Centennials. But if I were to buy the Aramith is there really a difference in the Super pro and tournament set? At $75 more in price I would hope there is a bigger difference other than the number style.


Thanks in advance for any help.
Click to expand...

Even though people don't see much difference, I think the tournament set plays tougher than either Centennials or Aramith Pro.

Aramith Pro balls rebound a bit more and you can move the cueball better than with the Centennials or the Tournament. In fact I know people that me and a friend of mine play with that refuse to play us if we use my friends Tournament set because it's tougher to move the cueball, you need about a 20% better stroke to get the same action on it. You play a draw shot and you are half the distance you thought you'd be till you are used to it.
 
hang-the-9 said:
Even though people don't see much difference, I think the tournament set plays tougher than either Centennials or Aramith Pro.



Aramith Pro balls rebound a bit more and you can move the cueball better than with the Centennials or the Tournament. In fact I know people that me and a friend of mine play with that refuse to play us if we use my friends Tournament set because it's tougher to move the cueball, you need about a 20% better stroke to get the same action on it. You play a draw shot and you are half the distance you thought you'd be till you are used to it.
Click to expand...



I'm not going to flat-out disagree with any of these comments, with all due respect of course, but I own and play every set made by Aramith. And after reading this post, went to the table with each of these sets in tow and my beloved stimpmeter of course for some field testing per se....

First of all, each ball within each set weighed in within 1 gram of each other - actually within .25 grams. Including the cue balls. Yes, I weighed them again even though I keep a detailed spec sheet of each ball set I have :-)

Second, I set up 2 different tests comparing rebound angles and distances traveled (one at 35 degrees for a simulated cross-bank shot and one at 60 degrees down table - off both the short and long rails using similar balls from each of the sets and each cue ball. Again, I used calibrated and adjustable measuring devices - my trusty protractor. Results: identical in every way. To the 1/2" on all roll tests and literally identical in rebound angles. 22 independent roll tests.

Third, the phenolic / ball technology used in the Pros versus the Tournaments is indeed different and will most likely grip the cloth slightly different (albeit nearly imperceptible) based on many factors applied through the player's input, chalk, stroke, etc, so I didn't feel it necessary to do a draw test with each since those kinds of controlled tests are probably best reserved to a lab with a robotic cue.

My overall feeling on these two ball sets "playing different" and needing a (better stroke) assuming all other variables remaining the same of course, are most likely a personal perception. Nothing wrong with that, but to say they rebound more or roll differently in terms of energy in versus energy out when the mass of each is literally identical, can be easily tested like I just did.

Perhaps the balls mentioned that play tougher are of vastly different weights and even cleanliness or condition, whereas mine were identical. Just a thought. My personal preference between these sets mentioned, has always been the Tournaments over the other two competitors, but again, just an opinion. Again, I think each person will have a different, though very similar experience.

The new Cyclop Standards, followed by the Aramith Tournaments and then perhaps the relatively inexpensive Aramith Crown Standards are 1,2 and 3 in my opinion for suggestions to the OP regarding choice of balls.

On second thought, maybe my trusty ball scale, stimpmeter and protractors are off. Hmm. Time to verify



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
K2Kraze said:
I'm not going to flat-out disagree with any of these comments, with all due respect of course, but I own and play every set made by Aramith. And after reading this post, went to the table with each of these sets in tow and my beloved stimpmeter of course for some field testing per se....

First of all, each ball within each set weighed in within 1 gram of each other - actually within .25 grams. Including the cue balls. Yes, I weighed them again even though I keep a detailed spec sheet of each ball set I have :-)

Second, I set up 2 different tests comparing rebound angles and distances traveled (one at 35 degrees for a simulated cross-bank shot and one at 60 degrees down table - off both the short and long rails using similar balls from each of the sets and each cue ball. Again, I used calibrated and adjustable measuring devices - my trusty protractor. Results: identical in every way. To the 1/2" on all roll tests and literally identical in rebound angles. 22 independent roll tests.

Third, the phenolic / ball technology used in the Pros versus the Tournaments is indeed different and will most likely grip the cloth slightly different (albeit nearly imperceptible) based on many factors applied through the player's input, chalk, stroke, etc, so I didn't feel it necessary to do a draw test with each since those kinds of controlled tests are probably best reserved to a lab with a robotic cue.

My overall feeling on these two ball sets "playing different" and needing a (better stroke) assuming all other variables remaining the same of course, are most likely a personal perception. Nothing wrong with that, but to say they rebound more or roll differently in terms of energy in versus energy out when the mass of each is literally identical, can be easily tested like I just did.

Perhaps the balls mentioned that play tougher are of vastly different weights and even cleanliness or condition, whereas mine were identical. Just a thought. My personal preference between these sets mentioned, has always been the Tournaments over the other two competitors, but again, just an opinion. Again, I think each person will have a different, though very similar experience.

The new Cyclop Standards, followed by the Aramith Tournaments and then perhaps the relatively inexpensive Aramith Crown Standards are 1,2 and 3 in my opinion for suggestions to the OP regarding choice of balls.

On second thought, maybe my trusty ball scale, stimpmeter and protractors are off. Hmm. Time to verify



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If the differences in the Tournament and the Pro set is "personal perception" that means that every player that played with us has had that same perception. When he first got it, I took a shot with draw that was about 1/4 the action I was expecting to get, and it did not get any better over the next few days will we learned to hit the ball with more pace.
 
hang-the-9 said:
If the differences in the Tournament and the Pro set is "personal perception" that means that every player that played with us has had that same perception. When he first got it, I took a shot with draw that was about 1/4 the action I was expecting to get, and it did not get any better over the next few days will we learned to hit the ball with more pace.
Click to expand...



1/4 the action huh? As in you expected the cue ball to draw let's say 24 inches and it only came back 6"? And then (let's say for an example) you attempted the same draw shot and planned the same 24" of cue ball draw and you indeed got a 24" draw with all other things being equal using the other cue ball...repeatedly?

IF THAT is the case, you sir, in my opinion only of course, most likely, have an imitation set of Tournaments :-)

If you have the chance, and have an accurate and calibrated scale, could you do a weight comparison for me between the two cue balls?

I suspect something is seriously amiss.



🏻

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
K2Kraze said:
1/4 the action huh? As in you expected the cue ball to draw let's say 24 inches and it only came back 6"? And then (let's say for an example) you attempted the same draw shot and planned the same 24" of cue ball draw and you indeed got a 24" draw with all other things being equal using the other cue ball...repeatedly?

IF THAT is the case, you sir, in my opinion only of course, most likely, have an imitation set of Tournaments :-)

If you have the chance, and have an accurate and calibrated scale, could you do a weight comparison for me between the two cue balls?

I suspect something is seriously amiss.



🏻

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He sold the set a while ago, nothing in how it looked or played looked like they were fake. I don't think I've heard of a fake Tournament set floating around. Once we got used to what it took to play with it, it played very true, just that no-one else wanted to use it LOL
 
Must have sold that darned unreliable Tourney set with it playing so dang slow

Then again, how perfect that set would be to use against an unsuspecting visiting AZB'er


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Two of my local rooms have new Tournament sets. Room A has measles cueballs, and Room B uses the Tournament CBs that came with the set. Both of these rooms have GC III's with Simonis 860 HR cloth. Most of the serious rooms here employ the measles balls, and that is the CB de rigueur around these parts.

I have never played well at Room B. It is the only place I have ever heard of that uses the Tournament CB. The only rub is, Room B also hosts tournaments with the highest payouts in the area. I've spoken with some of the stronger players and many concur that the CB is unusual; a few of them say getting used to it is an adjustment and others like me struggle somewhat.

At home I have a GC IV with 860 and Tournament TV balls, which come with a measles CB. I suspected something was funny with the Tourn CB, so I ordered one to play with my set.

I measured both CBs with a digital scale, and they have and identical weight of 170 grams. I didn't measure their sizes with a caliper, but I believe that they are of equivalent size.

I switch between both balls regularly. Even though they are the same weight, the Tournament ball behaves unlike other CBs. I agree with others' feelings that it is more difficult to draw and is follow heavy.

Even though my evidence is anecdotal and since the difference is weight is not quantifiable, my belief is that it is the duramith finish on the CB that contributes to its uniqueness. I don't know if there is any documentation or if anyone has ever inquired Saluc to see if this is the case.

In short, I find the measles CB to be a little "snappier" and easier to move around. The Tournament CB is a "follow favorite" and is not easy to whip around the table with draw, especially at a distance.

It's one of those things that is not easily put into words, like the way a boxer is described to have "heavy hands" or a sinkerball pitcher is said to throw a "heavy ball." It's more of an intuitive rather than a logical explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top