Cyclops balls.

buckshotshoey

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Looking to replace my standard Aramith balls. Cyclops have been on market for some time now. Seyberts has them for sale for 200 bucks. Are they worth it? Aramith Premiums go for 150 And the Aramith Super Pros go for 250.
I was going with the premiums. Are the Cyclops worth the extra 50 bucks?
 
buckshotshoey said:
Looking to replace my standard Aramith balls. Cyclops have been on market for some time now. Seyberts has them for sale for 200 bucks. Are they worth it? Aramith Premiums go for 150 And the Aramith Super Pros go for 250.
I was going with the premiums. Are the Cyclops worth the extra 50 bucks?
Click to expand...
Balls are balls in my opinion. As long as they're clean and of decent quality...which anything over $100 you kind of expect to be, I can't tell the difference. I bought the super pros expecting them to be far better to play with than the standard aramiths and I can't notice any difference at all. I've only played with a set of Cyclops balls once, and again, noticed no difference to the standard Aramith balls.
 
Balls are balls in my opinion. There are no silver bullet balls. Keep balls and table clean and most all of them work. Johnnyt
 
I have to agree with both of you. I like my standards just fine. Between 80 and 90 bucks. I was curious if the cyclops are a weight matched set. Didnt see that in the descriptions. May have overlooked it?
 
Cyclops

I have the non skittles set. Used 4 games. I now use the skittles skittles. 17o shipped.
 
buckshotshoey said:
Looking to replace my standard Aramith balls. Cyclops have been on market for some time now. Seyberts has them for sale for 200 bucks. Are they worth it? Aramith Premiums go for 150 And the Aramith Super Pros go for 250.
I was going with the premiums. Are the Cyclops worth the extra 50 bucks?
Click to expand...
I first played with these balls In Jan. and I thought they played a little different. I still think they do, most cut shots they seem to reduce throw a tiny bit. Long thin cuts were a tiny bit more difficult. It could be my imagination and the difference doesn't effect play negatively.

The promo for these balls say they are harder, so there is no need for polishing. This could cause the difference in play, because I am used to playing with polished balls. Also they are supposed to be like the older Brunswick balls.

Last month, I went to a tournament with the same touring Diamond tables with the Cyclop balls from January. And the balls all looked worn. The colors were fading and the numbers were blurred. It was like colored resin had been blended together under the original surface. None of the balls were polished, one of their selling points. But they seemed to play just fine.

I was just taken by how much wear they showed. It did remind me of the older Brunswick balls as how the colors faded, even though the colors are so different. Those old Brunswick balls seem to keep their size tolerances thru the years. So maybe the Cyclops will do the same. Only time will tell.
 
I've got a Skittles Set and have used them on my home table for close to a year. The biggest difference to me is the balls stay cleaner, longer. I like the way they play and look and, IMO, are a tad better that Centennials and Super Pros (I have both of these as well). I'm sure others will disagree.
 
rexus31 said:
I've got a Skittles Set and have used them on my home table for close to a year. The biggest difference to me is the balls stay cleaner, longer. I like the way they play and look and, IMO, are a tad better that Centennials and Super Pros (I have both of these as well). I'm sure others will disagree.
Click to expand...
I know you wrote that they stay cleaner. But, how do you think the play better? I'm just curious, because I also think they different, but I've heard a lot of players say that it's only mental and they play the same.
 
SouthernDraw said:
I know you wrote that they stay cleaner. But, how do you think the play better? I'm just curious, because I also think they different, but I've heard a lot of players say that it's only mental and they play the same.
Click to expand...

I think they take english better. To your point, it could be mental.
 
I'd try a set of the cyclop, but I don't want anything to do with their lighter-than-the-rest-of-the-set cue ball :(
 
jtaylor996 said:
I'd try a set of the cyclop, but I don't want anything to do with their lighter-than-the-rest-of-the-set cue ball :(
Click to expand...

I just weighed the Cyclop 1 Ball and Cue Ball. The 1 Ball weighs 169 grams and the Cue Ball weights 168 grams. I think that is too little to tell the difference.
 
stratshutr said:
Is there something wrong with the tried and true centennials?


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

Nothing at all. Is there something wrong with trying something new? I like the fact they stay cleaner, longer than Centennials and Super Pros and supposedly have a higher phenolic content than both Centennials and Super Pros (both made by Saluc).
 
rexus31 said:
I just weighed the Cyclop 1 Ball and Cue Ball. The 1 Ball weighs 169 grams and the Cue Ball weights 168 grams. I think that is too little to tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I think the +/- tolerance for super pros is 1 1/2 grams. Does that hold true with your set?
 
The best part about cyclop, is that it might help to lower the price of all the best balls, and kick start more research. competition is always good...........:wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top