Cloth Years Ago

D

DrCue'sProtege

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have watched some older matches from back in the 70s and 80s and it looks like the tables aren't quite as fast as the ones today. What is the reason for this? Assume its the cloth. And if so, what was the dominant cloth back in the 60s/70s/80s?

Not sure why it wasn't Simonis since its been around since 1680. Or perhaps it was Simonis?

DCP
 
It was a wool napped cloth. I think a popular brand back then was Mali 80/20. The Simonis napless cloth had an origin in billiards I believe and was then brought over to pool.
 
DrCue'sProtege said:
I have watched some older matches from back in the 70s and 80s and it looks like the tables aren't quite as fast as the ones today. What is the reason for this? Assume its the cloth. And if so, what was the dominant cloth back in the 60s/70s/80s?

Not sure why it wasn't Simonis since its been around since 1680. Or perhaps it was Simonis?

DCP
Click to expand...

The dominant cloth, ball, racks, and tables will always be the ones that sponsor tournaments and advertise most=peer pressuse. IMO Simonis is too fast for pool and a joke on a 7' table. Aramith balls are good balls, but not worth the price compared to some of the cheaper brands, that IMO play just as good. If I was offered a 9' Diamond or a 9' Brunswick Gold Crown, I'd take the GC. If offered a 7' Valley or a 7' Diamond, I'd take the Diamond. Diamond, Simonis, and Aramith have done a great job of marketing, but are they the very best? IMO, no. Johnnyt
 
Older cloth had a direction. You had to brush from the top down .If you ran your hand over the cloth it left a raised section you could see and would change the direction of the balls.
 
ctyhntr said:
When the focus of professional pool switched from straight pool to 9-ball, Simonis came out with 860. ...
Click to expand...

Simonis 860 was developed as part of Greg Sullivan's efforts to standardize equipment (including the development of the Diamond tables) for the pro tour. He tried 760 initially and got feedback that it was too fast. So he pursued the development of a cloth that was mid-way in speed between 760 and the "fuzzy" pool cloths of the time, and that became Simonis 860.
 
Played yesterday in a great room. Lots of action. About 18 Gold Crown 9 footers. They were all just re covered in Champion cloth. Boy were they fast. Almost like playing on a 7 foot Diamond with Simonis.
 
Thanks for the clarification. Was Greg part of the effort to adopt Texas Express 9-ball rules, so the audience would be more engaged than 14.1?

AtLarge said:
Simonis 860 was developed as part of Greg Sullivan's efforts to standardize equipment (including the development of the Diamond tables) for the pro tour. He tried 760 initially and got feedback that it was too fast. So he pursued the development of a cloth that was mid-way in speed between 760 and the "fuzzy" pool cloths of the time, and that became Simonis 860.
Click to expand...
 
ctyhntr said:
Thanks for the clarification. Was Greg part of the effort to adopt Texas Express 9-ball rules, so the audience would be more engaged than 14.1?
Click to expand...

I believe we owe that to Randy G. I wish only 9 ball on TV was changed and the old game was still played in poolrooms and non-TV tournament. It's a shame at least 80% playing now don't know how to play it. They really missed a better 9 ball game. What a shame. Johnnyt
 
DrCue'sProtege said:
I have watched some older matches from back in the 70s and 80s and it looks like the tables aren't quite as fast as the ones today. What is the reason for this? Assume its the cloth. And if so, what was the dominant cloth back in the 60s/70s/80s?

Not sure why it wasn't Simonis since its been around since 1680. Or perhaps it was Simonis?

DCP
Click to expand...
Many were 100% wool and directional. Brunswick had a popular cloth called I believe "Brunsco" that was slow. In the pool room where I played I had a little pull and got them to use non-directional that played a little faster. Once it got broken in it played pretty good.

Another comment is that the old matches you are watching they are probably playing on new cloth, tables just covered for the tournament. Pool room players had a choice of tables to play on and I always picked tables that were fairly worn and faster given a choice. I never liked new cloth.
 
Besides being fuzzy, lots of the cloth in the 60s and 70s was rubber-backed. That was said to make it last longer maybe by preventing tears or keeping tears together when they did happen.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Besides being fuzzy, lots of the cloth in the 60s and 70s was rubber-backed. That was said to make it last longer maybe by preventing tears or keeping tears together when they did happen.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that. I think they did that with the wool cloth that would tear easily. I saw one tear when the guy was stretching it on a new cloth installation.
I think the backings went away with the introduction of blended cloth that you could not tear if you tried. Plus you can really stretch that stuff tighter then the wool.
 
Is this the reason why signs prohibiting masse shots were prominent?

macguy said:
I forgot about that. I think they did that with the wool cloth that would tear easily. I saw one tear when the guy was stretching it on a new cloth installation.
I think the backings went away with the introduction of blended cloth that you could not tear if you tried. Plus you can really stretch that stuff tighter then the wool.
Click to expand...
 
I owned a pool room for 8 years. The cloth companies loved when most went from 14.1 to 9 ball. I had 2 tables for 14.1 and the cloth would last at least 2 times longer than the tables used for 9 ball. Johnnyt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top