Cyclops vs brunswick & aramith

Here we have BMW, Mercedes and a V6 Camry ( Cyclop ). A top end Camry costs as much as a lower end BMW or Mercedes or very close to it. But still sells and has a great reputation, unlike the Cyclop

Is it as good for what you get? No. Is it better in some ways? Yep. Can be just about as fast, is more reliable. You lose out on some handling and the "oo you got a BMW" factor. But it has benefits. It's still a very good car, smooth, more reliable and cheaper to maintain.

The Cyclop, if you take out the funky colors, have no benefits over the established good ball sets, not really in price unless you get the really low price from Diamond like we did on here. And I found that quite a few were selling them after they got them. They cost almost the same, don't play as good and have a funky cueball design.

So who would pick to use those unless they were forced by a sponsored equipment set?

Here is something funny. The finals of the BEF Jr Nationals a couple of years back were sponsored by Delta 13, on the streaming table. So they used one, but under that was a magic rack that was actually keeping the balls tight. They want Cyclop to be used as a sponsored set to get the name out there and to show people that the pros use them, but what they have is at best "well, it's an OK set as long as you replace the cueball" LOL, to "I will rather kill my dog than use them".
 
We need to get Dr. Dave involved and compare Aramith against Cyclops. Not sure exactly what he could compare but I'm sure he could come up with some good tests.
 
robsnotes4u said:
Simple Analysis.



Diamond wanted something to go with their tables. They found Cyclops, and were "sold" on the product and the profitability of selling Cyclops balls. They became the Distributor in the US.



Did they make a bad business decision? Only they can say.



When you run a tournament, and Diamond is the sponsor along with Cyclops they have the say. With the lack of tourneys, and sponsors, all the players can do is live with it or don't play.
Click to expand...


Quite frankly I'm a bit sick of Diamond. I don't like the super ball rails on their tables, you don't need a stroke to get around the table, I prefer Gold Crowns, they play better. I HATE the blue cloth that clown at Diamond brought to the game, easier on the eyes my ass. Lastly Cyclops balls they're shoving down everyone's throats are garbage compared to Aramith. Yeah that about covers it, end of rant.
 
itsfroze said:
Of coarse it should be discussed on a public forum such as AZ, as this product is sold to the public. Seems people in the industry want to keep everything private.
How has that been working out for the well being of Pool ?
Click to expand...



A few things to keep in mind.

1. Any problems that are addressed the right way, are much easier to correct. Making for a better product for the public.

2. Public accusations and unsupported claims are only meant to stoke a fire. Stoking the fire does nothing for solving the problem, it only makes it worse. If the person making the public accusations really wants the problem solved, then he would just work to solve the problem. If he just wants to stoke the fire, he'll do something else.

3. Any company, billiard industry or otherwise, who is considering advertising in this industry will have second thoughts when they see things like this. Our industry needs more interested advertisers, not less.


Public bashing and complaining are all about emotions and ego's, not problem solving.


Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
JC. WHAT IS YOUR TOURNAMENT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. What pro experience do you bring to the table to comment
 
I only played with them last year @ SBE and I found myself checking the ball numbers alot. That's why I lost :smile: . They played ok for me but would much rather use Aramith. The colors were the problem and I heard many people *****ing about them.
 
JC said:
Cyclop balls play better than 99% of the people complaining about them.

Much better.

JC
Click to expand...

You might want to check your facts. To me it seems that the majority of people complaining are elite pros. At least from what I've heard.

KMRUNOUT
 
Guess what, ladies? The biggest tournament of the year is coming up in less than a month and whether anyone likes it or not they’ll be using Cyclop balls. Attend, don’t attend. Doesn't matter who you are, no one is going to miss you.

On a side note, I think there's reason to believe that any "pro" that wants to puff up his chest and bad mouth a sponsor or two is going to learn that words on social media (as well as actions) can have an impact and that there are decision makers who are fed up with l'enfants terrible pool pros and will be all too happy to ensure they get their wish in a long term kinda way.

Cyclop balls are not going away. And if there are problems, GS has shown that he is willing to work on a product to make it better. Will everyone end up happy? Probably not. But he's putting his money where his mouth is and putting on big, successful tournaments and introducing new equipment in an attempt to standardize the sport. So SP doesn't like Cyclop balls. Scott Frost says they're the best balls he's ever played with. I've played with them under tournament conditions and have my own set and like them just fine. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
RBC said:
A few things to keep in mind.

1. Any problems that are addressed the right way, are much easier to correct. Making for a better product for the public.

2. Public accusations and unsupported claims are only meant to stoke a fire. Stoking the fire does nothing for solving the problem, it only makes it worse. If the person making the public accusations really wants the problem solved, then he would just work to solve the problem. If he just wants to stoke the fire, he'll do something else.

3. Any company, billiard industry or otherwise, who is considering advertising in this industry will have second thoughts when they see things like this. Our industry needs more interested advertisers, not less.


Public bashing and complaining are all about emotions and ego's, not problem solving.


Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
Click to expand...

Royce,

I agree with everything you said in your previous longer post. However, I do not fully agree with the "keep it behind closed doors" approach. Looking at things *optimistically*, lets say the Cyclop balls are really awesome, the best. If that were true, it would greatly benefit that company to have as much discussion as possible. I recognize, however, that not all discussion is "good" discussion. As evidenced by this thread and Shawn Putnams FB post, not all contributors are qualified to participate intelligently, factually, or courteously.

On the other hand, it appears that the reported problems are these:
1) Balls roll off, appearing to not be consistently weighted
2) Cue ball slides more (what you said others were incorrectly referring to as "skid")
3) Numbers on balls are raised up, causing an inconsistent surface
4) Some say the balls skid more (the correct use of the term referring to cling between balls)
5) Cue ball does not behave properly

So if, in fact, any or all of these complaints were true, it would be very useful to discuss this *accurately* and politely. This is because it is much easier to establish the Cyclops name if the public who purchase the ball sets are happy. As these balls are still fairly new, the conversation allows a wider sample of people to offer the company feedback. This allows the company to address the concerns *before* a bunch of people buy them and are dissatisfied.

I couldn't agree more that "I hate them, they are junk" type complaints are mostly useless. They make the complainers look uninformed, and it is easier for other consumers or even the manufacturer to disregard the complaints.

The thing is, the problems are either real, or they are not. The opinions of the top pros, who certainly have a greater sensitivity to the subtle nuances of the balls, ought to count for quite a lot. Remember at the BCA when they had those survey cards for people to fill out about the Cyclop balls? If there is anyone here who went to that event, *didn't* fill out a survey, and are now complaining...shame on them!

The bottom line is that the manufacturer needs to face the problem head on. I am certain that if I told you about some design issue I noticed with OB products, and I presented my opinions in a courteous, well reasoned way, I sincerely doubt you would blow it off. That, I'm sure, is why your company has been successful and turns out a great product that people love. (Myself included!)

If Cyclop comes forward and says "hey, looks like we have some things to take a look at", and then does the work, improves the product, re-releases it and says "now what do you think", to me that would go a long way towards establishing the integrity and quality of the brand.

Personally, I thought the Cyclops balls played great, especially on the bar tables. I think the cue ball plays a hair light. However, I don't think anyone can argue that the tolerances are tighter with Cyclop than with any other ball. Pretty much every set is within 1 gram. That is pretty damn good in my book.

Anyway, I really wish the Cyclop company luck, especially so if they are interested in pumping any money at all into pool. Everyone else that loves this game and wants to see it healthy again should feel the same.

KMRUNOUT
 
KMRUNOUT said:
You might want to check your facts. To me it seems that the majority of people complaining are elite pros. At least from what I've heard.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

More people have complained about them on AZ today alone than the number of "elite pros" currently alive.

Thus your statement is mathematically impossible.

JC
 
The One Eyed Set Rates a "F" Grade

Did a poll on AZ earlier this year that ran for a month......results are plain and clear........the one eyed set was blown away in popularity by Brunswick Centennials.


04-14-2014, 09:43 AM Cyclop Pool Balls
​
Over the past couple months, it seems like the Cyclop pool ball design popularity that was being bolstered by AZ threads has taken a genuine nose-dive........big time.

When the bulk buy of Cyclop sets was recently being put together, there were Azers coming out of the wood work expressing interest in getting a set of Cyclop pool balls and amazingly, there was lots of people indicating they wanted the skittles color set instead of the traditional color set.

Well, I've been a critic of the Cyclop design and so I bought a set to compare with Centennials which I think rate #1 when it comes to pool ball sets. I even started a poll that you can search if you're curious. The poll results conducted over a month confirmed overwhelmingly that Azers ( 3 out of 4) prefer the Brunswick Centennial design over the Cyclop design and the Cyclop skittles color set was a total flop according to the poll results, which I always suspected because I think the skittles version Cyclop actually has an unappealing appearance, i.e., ugly.

And when you adjust the survey for Azers that voted neutral (no preference for Centennials or Cyclop pool balls) which was a small number, 8 out of 10 Azers that participated in the survey preferred Centennials.....that's a huge difference.....4 out of 5.
 
Pool balls

I think the Brunswick Centennial balls are great balls - mostly based on appearance. They are made by Saluc. I also think Aramith super pro balls are very good.

I KNOW that Cyclop balls are 'slightly' closer in weight than Aramith (we weighed out around 20 sets of each about 18 months ago).

But ALL of these balls play way better than I do. And I am an accomplished player, instructor, and student of the game.

Most comments should be addressing the cue ball. My favorite cue ball is the red circle (not red dot)! Started using it in my rooms when using Simonis 760- which would burn up any other cue ball. But the red circle plays lighter than the measle ball (which I have never cared for).

So which is best? Who knows. They are all 'acceptable' - and although no one wants an out of round cueball, but did you ever play with the plug ball or the mud ball? How about tournaments that use old mixed sets of balls that are never cleaned?

There is do much more to be thrown in the discussion!

BTW - what do YOU think the chances are that Diamond will use Brunswick Centennials at any event ever? Forgetting they cost about $75-$100 more per set! I have watched and played a lot with all types of balls. I have had balls roll off. But there are a lot less problems with Diamond/Cyclop than any other large events going on.

You try setting up 300 tables in 3 days-and tell me how you like it. Or compare the BCAPL tables with any other league nationals.

A good mechanic will seldom blame the tools.........

Mark Griffin
 
the company should be jumping with joy that the people here are critical of their product. what a cheap way to get a consensus of people using their product.

that said now it is time they instantly find out what is wrong with it and fix it and come forward and tell what happened and how it is changed. that is good business. not hiding it and hoping they can get away with the problems or they go away and maybe it wont be an issue doesnt work..

if its just a cueball problem fix it or allow another cue ball to be used until they get it right.

as to golf when sponsored the pros use the irons that they are paid to play with. but they do customize them. and they are allowed to use their own wedges and putters usually.

and speak up people or things never change as companies tend to sweep it under the rug if the public does not get in their face and demand a better product.
 
mnb said:
other than $$$, can someone explain to me why the Cyclop balls are supposed to be better than Super Pro Aramiths or Brunswick Centennials??? :confused:
Click to expand...
here is what Scott Frost posted on Facebook
Capture.JPG

POV POOL Interview with Cyclop Representatives https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bxBqVyQnSw
 
Last edited:
mnb said:
other than $$$, can someone explain to me why the Cyclop balls are supposed to be better than Super Pro Aramiths or Brunswick Centennials??? :confused:
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is my question too. Show me the bleeping data please. Not a bunch of " these suck" or " these are awesome" comments.

For the record, I had the exact same questions when diamond tables showed up. I was not and am not willing to accept " because I said so" as proof of quality. Prove to me that something is better ( or just as good for the same money or less) and I'm a customer for life, with no regard to popularity. This is the beauty of free enterprise. The consumer drives the quality higher and the price lower.
 
Cyclop

Mr. Bond,

I can personally attest that after comparing about 20 sets of Cyclop balls and 20 sets of Aramith super pros (maybe 18 months ago), the Cyclop were tighter in weight with usually one ball a gram heavy. The Aramiths generally had many balks varying but still within 3 grams or so.

We also know the surface is harder and they stay clean longer. I know both are round, but we don't have real sophisticated testing equipment. I also know that the practice of using a measle balls defies logic if trying to match cue ball and object balls.

The Cyclop cue ball has a 'thicker' finish and it is trickier to 'see' the edge- but a little practice solves that.

I won't say Cyclop are better - but I also won't say Aramith are better. As far as I am concerned, they both play better than almost every human playing pool.

The only possible issue is cue balls, but between the red circle, measle and others, there is almost no standard. So many times balls roll off, no one actually analyses the cause. As a previous table mechanic, there are a lot of reasons- but if not repeatable, you have not identified the problem.

Mark griffin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top