Chalk.... Inconvenient Truths....

[BRussell]

I'm not joining this fight,I just don't understand how bigotry is ok when it is geared towards Americans. Why do so many Europeans feel the need to qualify their opinions as perceived improvements over their perceived "American" way of thinking. I think for myself thank you!


So this is in some way relevant. I love science and I love magic chalk. Draw your own conclusions.

What's funny is that Europeans in general, and Germans in particular, are much more likely to be into quack-y and new-agey nonsense than Americans. Secret mystical "alternative" health remedies are a huge industry in Germany, much more influential there than in the US.

And of course virtually all the people criticizing the pool BS here are Americans.

 

[Mr. Bond]

2) Premium Chalk does not have a different misscue limit than standard chalk...


3) ....Better chalk will change your game it you give it a month for your subconscious to relearn the new limits and you can trust those limits on each shot using several premiums as they are more consistent and homogeneous

Premium chalk does not have different limits than standard chalk, but premium chalk will change your game once your mind adjusts to the new limits?

Can you explain this apparent contradiction?

 

[GideonF]

Premium chalk does not have different limits than standard chalk, but premium chalk will change your game once your mind adjusts to the new limits?

Can you explain this apparent contradiction?

This might not have been that clear, but I think the line about chalk not changing miscue limits was Chris stating a conclusion reached by Dr. Dave which Chris thinks is wrong.

I am not getting involved in this fight, but I would like to say that if Chris (or anyone else) thinks Dr. Dave is wrong and wants to convince people of that, I really think they should design AND FILM an experiment proving that this is so. I'm not saying you can't think he's wrong, and use whatever chalk you think is best, but if you want people to accept your views, some actual tests we can see would help.

Gideon<---Hates Kamui chalk.

 

[Mr. Bond]

This might not have been that clear, but I think the line about chalk not changing miscue limits was Chris stating a conclusion reached by Dr. Dave which Chris thinks is wrong.

Ah, i see what you mean. In that case, my bad. Apparently no contradiction.

 

[Mr. Bond]

How do you know exactly what ingredients are in ( or left out of) Masters and Kamui?
Is there a lab report that can show proof of your claims?

I'm gonna go ahead and help you out with this one.

You're a smart guy Chris, but be realistic, you don't know exactly what's in a cube of Kamui or Masters, yet I keep seeing you make these bold statements about the quality of their ingredients, or a lack thereof.

Some of the things you have stated are nowhere near true, and in the legal world, would be considered libelous.

For example, Master chalk contains "ungraded" abrasives?
And this constitutes "not premium" chalk?
They just throw buckets of sand off the beach into the mix?
And you know this how? Because you peeked at it under a microscope?
You identified each type of silicate particle, isolated it, and tested each one?

Here's an inconvenient truth Chris, you are also "spreading myths", as you have so boldly accused Dave Alciatore of doing. It's a bit hypocritical to say the least.

You have been fortunate to make a dent in this industry, which happened undoubtedly with the help of many other industry members.
So with that in mind, I find it particularly ungrateful of you to treat reputable industry members with anything other than respect, even if you do happen too disagree with them.

Or are you like that Rick fellow who believes that Dave (and Bob) have some sort of secret mind control agenda, and that we're all too stupid to see thru the ploy while they line their pockets with our gold? They must be stopped !

Good lord man.

Make your products, do your thing, knock yourself out.
But dissin people and other peoples products aint got nuthin ta do with that.

 

[KissedOut]

Precisely the answer I expect when someone doesn't have anything of any substance to defend their out of line actions or nonsense beliefs.

Let us know when you have the apology to Dr. Dave and the others you insulted and called names without justifiable reason, and let us know if you ever come up with any evidence to support any of the nonsense claims you make.

Judging by its original context, Inconvenient Truth seems to be some kind of code for "what comes next is essentially BS".

As for me,I am going to go with the guy with the science degrees who is regularly doing great things for pool in making enormous amounts of actual scientific data available for our edification, putting his own hand into his own pocket to support pool, and putting his methodology out there in a scientific way so anyone can test his reliability over someone with an obvious axe to grind who completely loses me when right off the bat he has to resort to ad hominem (amateur pool stroke? even if true, and I don't know either way, it has no RELEVANCE). Call me crazy.

 

[KissedOut]

After reading this thread, I am sure that I will never purchase anything from outsville.com. This was a very bad thread and I should have not wasted my time reading such insults....

Yup. This is exactly what that "Professionalism" thread was all about He indulged his emotions and it will cost him sales.

And it has nothing to do with the merits of the case, it has to do with his inability to be civil.

 

[jburkm002]

I'll also add that all of these miscue tests, scientific or not, are completely irrelevant to my pool game. I'd like someone to show me a shot I can make with brand X chalk that I can't make with my $.15 cube of chalk. That's the bottom line, IMHO.

I guess if the tests were true. Then any shot outside the miscue limit of one chalk could be made using another chalk.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[jburkm002]

Usually the only time I have miscue issues is when I use house chalk that has been sitting in the humidity all day. Any tests on chalks that hold up better in humidity?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Johnnyt]

Ask a top pro that has no skin in any brand of chalk and he/she will tell you why he miscued...and it won't be a damn thing to do with chalk. That's why most pros smile or laugh at themselves after a miscue, because they know THEY screwed up...NOT THE CHALK.

No wonder the perfect aim guy says the OP's tips are the best. They came from the same smoke and mirror sales school. Johnnyt

 

[john coloccia]

Usually the only time I have miscue issues is when I use house chalk that has been sitting in the humidity all day. Any tests on chalks that hold up better in humidity?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I fixed that issue once and for all. I bring my own chalk. The difference between soggy Masters and dry is night and day. Mine stay in my climate controlled shop, and the top 1/4" or so is always bone dry. I can tell immediately when I get to the soggier interior. All of a sudden, it stops adhering to the tip well, it gets all over my hands, etc. I chuck it and grab another piece.

Everyone says the same thing...I'm wasteful, I'm throwing out good money, etc etc. For $.15, I can toss out all the chalk I want and it wouldn't pay for the tip on that Bud Light they're sucking down!

Nothing against premium chalk, mind you. I play better with a nice cue, and I'm sure some people play better/have more confidence with nicer chalk, so that's great and we have lots of choices.

 

[dr_dave]

... I should have waited until I could post something of substance instead of calling names but Dave did post his link on my site and has been doing so on my sales threads for awhile on FB... He is spreading myth...

Chris,

I have posted my chalk-comparison resource-page link on Facebook only when someone has asked for my input (e.g., by tagging me in a post) or when you have used my name and/or misrepresented something I have written or posted. And I will continue to do so until you stop doing this.

Many of you have likely seen this on you tube... http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/chalk.html..... After 6 years studying, making and pretty much breathing and eating chalk... There are some truths that won't match up with a bad set of tests and an amateur stroke.....

First of all, I don't claim to have anything other than an "amateur stroke," because I am an amateur. Regardless, I carefully designed my tests so an "amateur stroke" is sufficient.

Second of all, I think you miss the main point of my video and other info on my chalk comparison resource page. I do present data comparing many chalks (including Great White) based on the tests I did, but that's not the main point. The main point is that anybody can easily do these tests and comparisons on their own. And I provide very simple procedures that anyone can follow, and they don't need any special equipment or a "professional stroke." Anybody can do it. And for those who do the tests carefully, I am confident they will get results similar to mine. But nobody should take my word for it (nor should they believe any outrageous and mythical marketing claims they might hear or read). If they really want to know how different chalks actually compare, they should do careful and meaningful tests on their own.

Corey Deuel was at the Expo and decided to see for himself if there really was a difference between Master and Kamui... His idea on how to test this and eliminate bias and stroke flaws was once again pure genius.... And all it took was the chalk, his cue and a simple notebook...
What Corey did was to use the notebook to establish the height of his stroke... He then took turns with the different chalks and started turning pages to lower his cue as he went on shooting draw shots....
Once he established a misscue limit for the master he continued to turn pages and go lower and lower with the Kamui.... Now I have to point out that the master had a fluctuating limit since it does not use a graded abrasive... What you thought was the limit for one shot was not the limit the next time....

Thank for you sharing this. I will give it a try when I can find some time. Although, it would be helpful to see a video demonstration and/or a more-detailed explanation of this technique (with setup and execution details) so others can attempt to duplicate it (as with my tests). Obviously, there are some things that would require some care in an experiment like this for the results to be meaningful.

I have not done the test with the different chalks because of time but this is something ANY of you can try...

This is my point exactly. Anybody who doubts my results should try the tests on their own.

Regards,
Dave

 

[JoeyM]

I have two requirements for chalk.
1. That it works as designed when applied.
2. That it creates a minimal amount of residue on my hand.

I just started back several months ago after a 20 break from pool. I bought some Master because that's what I used back in the day. It worked as designed but I have to wash my hands after every couple of games. Then I tried Predator chalk and had the same results. I bought some blue Lava chalk and can now play for hours without having to wash my hands between games. I also have purchased Magic Chalk and it dusted a bit until I got the very top layer off and then it performed dust-wise like the Lava.

Here is why dusting is important to me. I am right handed and chalk with my right hand. I only have cues with a linen wrap. All that chalk residue on my right hand could make my wrap really nasty. I admit that it could be my technique and that I chalk endlessly while thinking at the table. Nervous habit I guess. With the same technique the Lava and Magic Chalk don't dust much for me.

Things have changed so much in the last 20 years. Tips, LD shafts, chalk, etc. I did run across Dr Dave's chalk page while researching new fangled chalk. I thought it was interesting. I agree that if you chalk before every shot, the brand shouldn't matter. Miscue limits are somewhat interesting, but in the end, how much residue is left on my hand is the most important consideration.

Disclaimer: My results with dusting are MY results. Others may not experience the same results.

Sorry for the long rambling post,
Joey

 

[Bob 14:1]

After reading this thread, I am sure that I will never purchase anything from outsville.com. This was a very bad thread and I should have not wasted my time reading such insults....

Well said. This entire thread is a thinly veiled attempt to promote products.

I applaud Dave for all the information he provides.

 

[pocket]

Chris, ...snip snip snip...

Thank you Dr Dave for continuing to show class and provide to our billiard knowledge base.

Regards.

 

[GideonF]

Well said. This entire thread is a thinly veiled attempt to promote products.

I'm not convinced of that. Chris is a smart guy who actually has used science and technology to try to advance our game. I haven't tried his tips but there are knowledgeable people who love them. His racks are good.

I think part of the problem is that many things that Chris believes about chalk (and tips, I suspect) are contrary to what Dr. Dave has concluded. They either go against his experience as a player, or his own work on chalk, or both. For all I know, Chris may be right. But he may not be.

The problem with this thread is that Chris didn't do what he should (IMO of course) have done, which is to construct something to prove Dr. Dave wrong. He could have replicated Dave's experiment and shown different results, or he could have said Dave's test is flawed and set up a better test and filmed it for us to evaluate. Maybe that's the Corey test (with film back up). Maybe it is something else. But something of that nature is the way to prove your point.

Or, he could have done what Shane of OB did. Say something like "I make chalk I think is better. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, then don't."

Either way, name calling and other attacks only ever detracts from your credibility and IMO that was a mistake.

 

[pocket]

...snip snip snip...
Either way, name calling and other attacks only ever detracts from your credibility and IMO that was a mistake.

Well said, and my bottom line take from this thread.

 

[Straightpool_99]

The video you showed is a good way for someone to learn what the approximate miscue limit is, but that is all. One has to realize that the tip has a 3mm contact area. Most amateurs have trouble staying within 3mm of where they want to hit the cb, and most pros strive for staying within about 1mm.

Each page of that book was 1/10 of a mm. No one is going to be that accurate on their hits. Not to mention that for an actual test of a miscue limit being fine-tuned, this method fails for the simple reason that the paper will be compressed various amounts depending on just where contact was made on the paper. So, it can not give an accurate result. It can only teach one an approximate area of where the miscue limit is.

Maybe you are right, but in testing my miscue limit my results were quite consistent and I thought it was possible to compare chalk brands this way. I haven't actually tested this (for reasons which will be clear later in the post). The one thing I do know, is that if I cannot tell the difference between chalk brands using this kind of test, then there is little chance of noticing any difference in actual play (in the miscue limit).

Dr. Dave actually pointed out a huge (to me anyway) problem with the so called "premium chalks" and that's the tendency to stick to the cueball and cause skids. If the difference in the miscue limit is so minute as to be undetectable by an amateur even with the help of the notebook, then this skid problem by far outweigh the possible miscue benefit to ME. Guess I will stick to Masters/Triangle and chalking before each shot. It's been working for me so far.

 

[tucson9ball]

Willie Mosconi ran 526 balls, still a record for 14.1, and this was before all these new fangled chalks.

Earl Strickland ran 11 racks in a row for a $1,000,000 payout, again....before these new chalks......*he settled later for less money*

I have personally ran 5 racks in a row on 4 different occasions using Masters chalk. When I miscue I never blame it on the chalk. A miscue is due to a bad stroke or hitting outside the limits of using English....period!

Being consistent in playing pool requires good fundamentals and a good pre-shot routine. Most pros use chalk between every shot, it's just part of their pre-shot routine that gets them ready for the next shot. I doubt most of them really pay attention to it, but they do it instinctively.

Along comes this new fangled chalk that advertises "only have to chalk every 15th shot". WTF! Am I supposed to start counting shots so I know when to chalk up? Well that won't be a distraction at all

Ok boys, back to arguing........

 

[greyghost]

Willie Mosconi ran 526 balls, still a record for 14.1, and this was before all these new fangled chalks.

Earl Strickland ran 11 racks in a row for a $1,000,000 payout, again....before these new chalks......*he settled later for less money*

I have personally ran 5 racks in a row on 4 different occasions using Masters chalk. When I miscue I never blame it on the chalk. A miscue is due to a bad stroke or hitting outside the limits of using English....period!

Being consistent in playing pool requires good fundamentals and a good pre-shot routine. Most pros use chalk between every shot, it's just part of their pre-shot routine that gets them ready for the next shot. I doubt most of them really pay attention to it, but they do it instinctively.

Along comes this new fangled chalk that advertises "only have to chalk every 15th shot". WTF! Am I supposed to start counting shots so I know when to chalk up? Well that won't be a distraction at all

Ok boys, back to arguing........

i beat a guy on a 9ft with a claw hammer playing 9 ball once.....5speed......i didn't miscue or lose shape once....i got lucky