What would cause OB's to shrink Jay?? Too many times in the washer, or what??
Big Ko on Waxed Balls
- Thread starter GideonF
- Start date
Getting hit a million times.
deleted
Last edited:
Many of the rooms I play in polish the balls regularly with what I am assuming is Aramith ball cleaner and a machine, it feels exactly like a fresh unwrapped set of new balls feel like.
It’s true that the CB is the one that wears down faster, but the other balls do also wear down.
So if you have an old ball set and the room replaces the CB, the CB could be a bit bigger.
By the way, for anyone who doubts that the CB wears down, stand a wooden rack on top of two OB (one on each corner) and then try to slide the CB under the rack. It usually slides under easily. If you try to slide an OB under the rack, it usually gets stuck.
A more precise way of demonstrating the size difference for a worn-down cue ball is to surround the cue ball with six object balls, in a ring. If you get five touching the cue ball (and each other), the sixth will leave a gap with the cue ball. If the cue ball is large, like maybe a new ball, the sixth object ball won't be able to complete the solid ring and will leave a gap.
In both cases, the size of the gap is three times the mismatch of the diameter of the cue ball to the object balls.
This technique can also detect a large/small object ball relative to the others. Is the one ball small compared to the stripes?
Bob……do you know the reason why pool balls are allowable to vary in weight up to 1/2 oz.?
If the cue ball actually does get lighter in weight over time from friction and becomes smaller
but the same isn’t true of object balls manifesting the same size reduction, I’d otherwise think
that the tolerances for object balls would be and really should be much tighter & closer in weight.
The maximum weight for a pool ball is 6 ozs. Since object balls and pool balls should be the same
weight, typically 167-169 grams, object balls shouldn’t be allowed to be vary in weight by 1/2 oz.
Is it because of the cost of replacing pool balls if the weight tolerances were tighter? The logical
reason is the higher cost of replacing pool balls that no longer meet the specs. Wouldn’t it be more
practical to use a weight variance of only 7 grams max. weight difference? Heck, if object ball weights
don’t suffer the same fate as cue balls, I’d make the max weight variance a max of 3.5 - 4 grams.
Replacing cue balls isn’t that expensive and it is not like a cue ball gets smaller in 6 months to a year
of play. In fact, how long ( hrs. of play) does it take for a cue ball to become smaller. How come this
isn’t an issue in 3 cushion where 2 cue balls are rolling all the time and traveling greater distances
on a pool cloth?
I am still startled that a cue ball will become smaller but I’m presuming that it takes a long time to happen.
Since it is a fact, I think the BCA should revisit the overly generous allowable difference in weight in pool
balls up to a 1/2 ounce. I do not understand the underlying reasons why this is allowable and hasn’t been
changed. Under the right conditions, it can affect a match’s outcome.
If the cue ball actually does get lighter in weight over time from friction and becomes smaller
but the same isn’t true of object balls manifesting the same size reduction, I’d otherwise think
that the tolerances for object balls would be and really should be much tighter & closer in weight.
The maximum weight for a pool ball is 6 ozs. Since object balls and pool balls should be the same
weight, typically 167-169 grams, object balls shouldn’t be allowed to be vary in weight by 1/2 oz.
Is it because of the cost of replacing pool balls if the weight tolerances were tighter? The logical
reason is the higher cost of replacing pool balls that no longer meet the specs. Wouldn’t it be more
practical to use a weight variance of only 7 grams max. weight difference? Heck, if object ball weights
don’t suffer the same fate as cue balls, I’d make the max weight variance a max of 3.5 - 4 grams.
Replacing cue balls isn’t that expensive and it is not like a cue ball gets smaller in 6 months to a year
of play. In fact, how long ( hrs. of play) does it take for a cue ball to become smaller. How come this
isn’t an issue in 3 cushion where 2 cue balls are rolling all the time and traveling greater distances
on a pool cloth?
I am still startled that a cue ball will become smaller but I’m presuming that it takes a long time to happen.
Since it is a fact, I think the BCA should revisit the overly generous allowable difference in weight in pool
balls up to a 1/2 ounce. I do not understand the underlying reasons why this is allowable and hasn’t been
changed. Under the right conditions, it can affect a match’s outcome.
Leave it to Bob to come in the science and require me to do arithmetic!
I have always assumed that the one ball is smaller in older ball sets because it’s the head ball on the break in rotation games. For this reason I always rack it in the back row when playing 8b so I can get the top rows frozen.
I have always assumed that the 0.5 oz difference was intended to apply to the whole ball sets. Like an old set might all be lighter than a new set, or maybe a manufacturer just makes their product a little lighter or heavier. The concept of having a .5 oz difference between say the 1 and the 2 in the same set would be odd.
The spec needs revision.
I think the range is to cover all the manufacturers who cared. Maybe it is from the days when some balls were clay.
A more important spec is the matching of the weights within a set. That needs to be added. I think the maximum variation in a set from lightest to heaviest ball should be 2 grams or less, out of about 170. That is about what Aramith is currently doing. Here is are the weights in the set I'm currently using:
I measured a set of Aramith Tournament balls (broken ring design) that I've been using for a few years. I used a scale that measures to a tenth of a gram. I measured twice to check repeatability and a few read 0.1 gram different on the two, so I averaged them.
The "error" is the difference from the average of all 16 balls. The errors more than half a gram are shaded.
I would have pasted the table from Excel, but it doesn't seem to work any more.
The "error" is the difference from the average of all 16 balls. The errors more than half a gram are shaded.
I would have pasted the table from Excel, but it doesn't seem to work any more.
If you look at old red circle cue balls, some of them have become pink circle, or even pink crescent. I just ran into one of these in a pool hall that may have bought the balls in the 1980s.
At the room where I played all the time (Shoreline, Mountain View), they polished the balls every night. About 10 years after they opened, a friend proudly brought in his shiny, new measles cue ball. It was about 2mm larger than the object balls. In turn, the house cue ball was about 2mm smaller than the object balls. Wear is real. Maybe not by polishing, but remember that the pool cloth becomes emery cloth with the addition of the ground sand that is in the chalk.
My first experience with a worn-down cue ball was in 1967 on the tables in the day room when I was in the Air Force. I didn't realize it at first, but my game changed to use almost exclusively draw shots because the cue ball was worn down to the size of a snooker ball (more or less). I got a shot of reality when I went into town to try the local hustlers. The cue ball was strange. It was dull, as if someone had sanded it, and it seemed large. I couldn't draw that ball which meant I couldn't run three balls. It turned out to be a fairly cheap lesson.
I think your assessment is spot on. Weight is important in how pool balls are made and pool cues are built.The spec needs revision.
I think the range is to cover all the manufacturers who cared. Maybe it is from the days when some balls were clay.
A more important spec is the matching of the weights within a set. That needs to be added. I think the maximum variation in a set from lightest to heaviest ball should be 2 grams or less, out of about 170. That is about what Aramith is currently doing. Here is are the weights in the set I'm currently using:
I measured a set of Aramith Tournament balls (broken ring design) that I've been using for a few years. I used a scale that measures to a tenth of a gram. I measured twice to check repeatability and a few read 0.1 gram different on the two, so I averaged them.
The "error" is the difference from the average of all 16 balls. The errors more than half a gram are shaded.
I would have pasted the table from Excel, but it doesn't seem to work any more.
The symmetry of pool balls influences how both the object ball and cue ball behave but that assumes one’s
stroke was not determinant in how both balls reacted. Pool cue anatomy is a little different but also a bit similar.
Dr. Dave did a video where he cleaned the balls with different cleaners, then he showed how the throw changed depending on what cleaner he used:
After that video, I stopped using isopropyl alcohol to clean my ballset (they get too clean which creates more throw), and I started using Aramith Ball Cleaner. However, when you are getting ready to play in a tournament make sure you warm up with a ballset that is going to be used in the tournament because the pool hall will have inevitably used some random cleaner to clean the ballsets, which will probably be different than what you use to clean your ballset.
Last edited:
I bet it wears em down over time.
That's how we first noticed the differences in the balls at the local hall.
Always. In the places I play, unfortunately.
Those 2 and 3 ball results stand out.The spec needs revision.
I think the range is to cover all the manufacturers who cared. Maybe it is from the days when some balls were clay.
A more important spec is the matching of the weights within a set. That needs to be added. I think the maximum variation in a set from lightest to heaviest ball should be 2 grams or less, out of about 170. That is about what Aramith is currently doing. Here is are the weights in the set I'm currently using:
I measured a set of Aramith Tournament balls (broken ring design) that I've been using for a few years. I used a scale that measures to a tenth of a gram. I measured twice to check repeatability and a few read 0.1 gram different on the two, so I averaged them.
The "error" is the difference from the average of all 16 balls. The errors more than half a gram are shaded.
I would have pasted the table from Excel, but it doesn't seem to work any more.
The owner was telling me he has to watch for players swapping out crappy balls for good ones. Says he's found some real doozies in there now and then.