I have spent some time reading reading different opinions about chalk on this thread, and I believe there are some good, valid points. I do not think there are any doubts that modern chalks are superior in some aspects to Master chalk, but this whole chalk deal is getting out of hand.
In my opinion, just because the pro's use chalks like Taom and other similar brands, does not mean that they are the absolute best, that there are the best option or that the players themselves want to use them, but they get paid to use the particular chalk and the company gets a nice visible logo on the playing jerseys. Same with cue makers and other equipment. SVB used Master until recently switching to Titlist, or Titleist, some sort of Tit something, lol. You can bet he switched because he is being paid, not because Master did not work for him. There is no shame in accepting a sponsorship if he is fine with the agreement and the chalk is good enough for his playing style. A similar scenario: I used to attend and compete in shooting matches. All the pro shooters were sponsored by high end equipment companies, got their name on shooting jerseys and the shooters used the gear provided to them, plus other incentives to travel the US to compete and promote the brand. It is simple marketing and a lot of people fall for it.
Will you become a better player by using expensive chalk? Probably not, especially if the fundamentals are flawed. Does it provide an edge? I do not think so. I chalk before every shot, regardless of what chalk I use, and I cannot see any difference in my playing performance with expensive chalk or Master. They both work. The only difference I see is cleanliness. I can miscue with both if my tip placing is not right and I hit the cue ball incorrectly. Can players benefit from the cleanliness of modern chalks? Absolutely. Is it 100% necessary? I do not believe so. If I did indeed blindly believed that using Master chalk would mess up my game, even after seeing that they both work, with differences, then I have fallen in the trap of marketing by sponsorship. My desicion to use modern chalk was based on financial considerations and the undeniable longevity modern chalk offers, not the thought of it being a "magic wand" chalk.
I don't particularly care about what choice of chalk people make. As far as I know, until the advent of the "superchalks" that everybody, including myself, now use, nobody had any issues with good old tried and true Master chalk. Hell, I do not have any issues with it; I do not mind washing my hands and maintain my wooden shafts often, which I will do regardless. Master has been used in World Championships, probably most US Open championships until recently, and all the professionals before used it without issues for maybe almost a century? To be exact, the formula was patented in 1897 produced by Spinks & Co until Tweeten Fibre bought the rights to the formulation and it has been producing it for around 100 years as Master. It took 128-129 years for people to develop issues. That's a pretty good run in my opinion.
Now it has become an issue on major tournaments, that use tables with brand new cloth and balls that are clean. Not to mention that players can ask the referee to clean the cue ball as much as he/she likes. To me, chalk residue becomes negligible on major tournaments because of the condition of the tables. Now, I do believe that it might be a legitimate issue on smaller tournaments, league play, etc, if the owner of the venue, or the organizers of events do not maintain the tables frequently, which in most instances it seems to be the case, of course keeping in mind and understanding how hard it is for owners/organizers to maintain tables when an establishment has a wide array of sometimes undesirable clientele using the tables. We have all been to places like that. Dr. Dave made a great chalk testing video and I made my own mind on the subject after watching it and using the chalks myself.
I am not denying that modern chalks are superior to Master in some regards. What I do not agree with is all the talk about banning Master chalk from the game, anywhere from major tournaments to league play. People should be allowed to use what works for them, as long as rules permit it. What will be banned next? Wooden shafts because a player wins with one, and the opponent thinks carbon fiber is superior and the increased deflection of a standard shaft gave the winner some sort of advantage to win the match?
I think some folks here can agree with me that pool is in trouble in the US. We are not producing as much talent as the rest of the world and although I do not participate and I do not have anything against leagues, they are also having issues in some aspects and aspiring players are discouraged to join and learn. If we do indeed continue to shame players for using Master, or any piece of equipment some people do not like, does it help the game, in the bigger picture, in any way? I do not think so. I rather see a young new player with a $20 walmart special cue equipped with a good tip, a cheap cue case and master chalk show up to a pool hall or join a league willing to learn and play than nobody at all because they will get shamed by the elitists of chalk or equipment. Let people use what they like or they can afford, as long as it is allowed in the rules. It is that simple.
I remember the debates about tips, Predator vs Meucci, glove vs no glove, the darn Sardo rack, Corey Deuel being a rack mechanic and pattern racking, Mike Sigel's breaking style, the debates about 9 ball vs 10 ball, Earl jumping balls with a full length cue, the classic Earl vs Efren debate, straight maple vs laminated maple shafts, Predator vs OB laminated shafts, then all wooden shafts vs carbon fiber... I never thought I would see so much division in the pool community from an issue tied to... chalk.
Just my 2 cents. I hope you all have a pleasant evening watching the US Open, or doing any favorite activities.
Eddie.
