"Diamondizing" A Table Thread

DrCue'sProtege said:
i sure as he~~ hope this thread doesnt turn into an argument or a pi~~ing contest, etc, etc. i started it to learn about the Diamondizing options so, uh, please, lets keep it about that, k?

Glen,
i sent you an email.

Mike
Click to expand...

u12armresl is harmless, as he only comes down from the mountains every once in a while, so we all just kind of have to put up with him until he gets back home and takes his pills...then he's OK again:grin:

I got your PM, and when you want to learn some more, feel free to send me a PM or just call me...my number is in the mechanic's section at the top of the page on the mechanic's listings:grin:

Glen
 
u12armresl said:
It was me who said that I has someone who would play him, but it wasn't meant to happen as Jesse needed to play around his area, wanted it to be streamed, and also wouldn't play the game that this guy wanted to play. No big deal, he is a good player, one of the best.

As far as the no way to argue the point, yes there is. The experiment can take place in a hall with both diamonds and GC's, but it wont be overnight results, sorry.
Click to expand...

Point taken. I was exaggerating a little bit by saying you couldn't argue it, but you have to admit, that playing on buckets is not the way to get any better. I wasn't referring to the two different tables, but the pocket sizes.
 
Donkey Puncher said:
Point taken. I was exaggerating a little bit by saying you couldn't argue it, but you have to admit, that playing on buckets is not the way to get any better. I wasn't referring to the two different tables, but the pocket sizes.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, but I think there's a bigger problem in the AFTER market than from the manufacture...and that's the lack of training in the table mechanics that replace the cushions at one time or another...which in turn, gets the table manufacture blamed for huge buckets. The GC3's here at Skip & Jan's corner pockets are all screwed up, not only do they have K66 cushions on them....but they vary in size anywhere from 5" to 5 1/2"...on the SAME tables...x 5 GC3's:eek: and it seems to really be no different when someone changes out the cushions on a Diamond. In the past, and even today...I've blamed the table manufactures for the lack of training in the table mechanics....because an untrained table mechanic is a table manufactures best sales person....because tables that could last 75 years...are getting destroyed in 15-20 years...and that translates into more sales for the manufactures;) Diamond has the only table mechanic that represents a table manufacture...out here training OTHER table mechanics on how to work on tables correctly as to NOT tear up the tables when being worked on. I'm not saying all mechanics are hacks....but I'd be willing to bet that 90% or more are.

Glen
 
I absolutely 100% agree with you, playing on buckets doesn't help.
You are totally right.

My argument was more geared towards one table helping as opposed to another regardless of the setup.

The comment after that about snooker came from years of watching people who think that their 9 ball game will get better from playing on a snooker table. They say things like "if I can make these little balls on this table, i'll be running racks with those big huge pockets over there" One of the tougher tables in the state. He forgot to take into account that the balls are also bigger. But I heard that from lots of people and it never helped.

The argument people make about helping line up and hit the ball properly is not entirely true IMHO as you are using a way bigger tip and that affects the hit also. Now if you were using a small tip on the snooker table to try to develop technique, that's a different story, but the ball comes off the large tips and the small tips a bit different.

Donkey Puncher said:
Point taken. I was exaggerating a little bit by saying you couldn't argue it, but you have to admit, that playing on buckets is not the way to get any better. I wasn't referring to the two different tables, but the pocket sizes.
Click to expand...
 
realkingcobra said:
pdcue said:
Who cares about what Brunswick did...

don't knock Diamond for taking the initiative to want to build a better table....CALL UP Brunswick...and ask THEM how come they let Diamond pass them up!

Glen
Click to expand...
But Diamond is completely to blame. It saw a market and went after it. Cross that out- Diamond fukin manhandled the market by putting out a top-shelf product.

Brunswick didn't do shit and it doesn't seem to bother them one bit that they got hit and Diamond is doing it. Ok, I'll quit.
Click to expand...
 
realkingcobra said:
:grin:

Here's a little secret for you, seeing's how you THINK you know so much about..."Old Brunswick's" and Artemis cushions;) The cushions on the "old" Brunswick's are 1 1/8" wide...Artemis K55 cushions are 1 1/4" wide...and in order to play right...require a different down angle on the sub-rails to get the nose height correct...BUT...the rails from the factory are not consistent in thickness at the top of the sub-rails...which is where the cushions line up at to set the nose height....and if the rails have different thickness's...then the nose height will also be different from rail to rail. Now, lets take a set of rails Ernesto worked on installing K66 cushions, belt sanding down the tops of the sub-rails to fit the K66 cushions...you'll NEVER get K55 cushions to fit right on ANY of the rails...until you first replace the wood at the top of the sub-rails in order to restore the straight edge on the top of the sub-rails needed to align the cushions....
hmmmmm....quite the dilemma you have going on there making that kind of a statement:grin: Don't even think you can correct the problem with the rails on a table saw....because it's no where near accurate....because how do you cut a bowed rail....straight?

You should really stick to what you DO know something about:grin:...you'd be better off:rolleyes: And since we're on this subject...4" to 4 1/4" pockets...what miter and down angles would they be at to make them play at their best? How thick would the facings be...as they have an effect on the play of the pockets as well?

Glen
Click to expand...

I done that job with k55 artemis recently with angle correction and GC3 is perfect now :rolleyes:
 
Gold Crowns

Here in the Syracuse are the 2 main pool halls both have GC I's. The tables have alot of inconsistencies that's true. On the same table you have facings cut at a wider angle than the opposite facing. There are pocket facings on the end rails that spit out balls because of the widened angle or the cupped facings from years of hard shots down the rails. It's nice to know speicfic problem pockets and see opponents miss because they don't.

To compare a new Diamond to a GC made in 1961 isn't exactly fair though. How many GC's was Brunswick making annually then, like a million?

Like it or not they are still the standard in most pool halls. The main reason many play badly is poor maintenance, with battered facings, loose rails, or loose rubber.

I'm no expert mechanic, but when I bought and restored a GC I in my home 2 years ago I was amazed by the craftmanship of a union carpentry made product. The wood used in the GC I's, the grain, the heft is just not available anymore. They to me are just a work of art, now nearly 50 years later. My pockets were built up to 4 5/8 corner pockets and that works fine for me, an 1/8 of an inch tighter wouldn't change a thing.

Diamonds play great, I love to play on them when the chance comes. Will they have the staus of a Brunswick Gold Crown in 2060? We'll see. Brunswick withdrawl from tournament involvement is sad to see, but underscores that tournament promotion doesn't produce a good return on investment.
 
peter_gunn said:
I done that job with k55 artemis recently with angle correction and GC3 is perfect now :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Perfect?...compared to what?...the way the tables use to play, or perfect when compared to a GC that has had the rails calibrated, corrected...and the correct miters and down angles used? If and when you ever get the chance to play on a GC or a Diamond that has had the rails calibrated to fit the K55 Artemis cushions...then...you'll know what perfect is:rolleyes:
 
master9baller said:
Diamonds play great, I love to play on them when the chance comes. Will they have the staus of a Brunswick Gold Crown in 2060? We'll see. Brunswick withdrawl from tournament involvement is sad to see, but underscores that tournament promotion doesn't produce a good return on investment.
Click to expand...

Let me say this, Diamond with the recent sub-rail calibration change...has just hit perfection, and by perfection I mean...I can no longer take a GC or a Diamond...calibrate the rails the way I do, and turn out a better playing table...because as far as I'm concerned...Diamonds rails are now..."Perfect"...and all I can do...is tie them with the work I can do. As far as having the "status" of a Brunswick GC in 2060...let me say this, the ProAms being built today...right now...are going to be not only playing great, but also look great...100 years from now....provided a hack table mechanic don't tear them up. Diamond is not going to change the looks of the ProAms in the future, so after polishing up the rails on a used ProAm, it'll look every bit as good as a NEW ProAm....being sold 50 years from now, and no one can say that about a Gold Crown...point in fact...take a look at a GC1:eek: If Diamond would have came out with todays ProAm...back in 1961...at the same time Brunswick introduced the GC1....Brunswick would never have made it to the GC2 model, and a 1961 ProAm would still look as good today, as it would have looked in 1961....new!

Glen
 
What's Dymondwood?

Isn't Dymondwood extruded plastic with wood dust? Surely indestructable, but maybe not classically beautiful. I get what you're saying RKC, but to some older can be better.

I agree with the OP that a perfectly hit low angle 20-30 degree shot into the corner pocket of a Diamond can be spit out with regularity. Myself, I don't like the way they bank short, especially with new cloth. I can make corrections for both of these in play though.
 
master9baller said:
Isn't Dymondwood extruded plastic with wood dust? Surely indestructable, but maybe not classically beautiful. I get what you're saying RKC, but to some older can be better.

I agree with the OP that a perfectly hit low angle 20-30 degree shot into the corner pocket of a Diamond can be spit out with regularity. Myself, I don't like the way they bank short, especially with new cloth. I can make corrections for both of these in play though.
Click to expand...

The "revised" Pro AM does not bank short nor does it appear to reject well hit balls from the 20*-30* angle.

I have one of these new models and am quite pleased with its playability. :)


jim
 
master9baller said:
Isn't Dymondwood extruded plastic with wood dust? Surely indestructable, but maybe not classically beautiful. I get what you're saying RKC, but to some older can be better.

I agree with the OP that a perfectly hit low angle 20-30 degree shot into the corner pocket of a Diamond can be spit out with regularity. Myself, I don't like the way they bank short, especially with new cloth. I can make corrections for both of these in play though.
Click to expand...

I haven't come right out and said it before, but I'm going to say it now. I redesigned the rails on all Diamond tables earlier this year, changing the way they play. There is NO more banking short or BOINGING off the rails on the new Diamonds. The new design was used in the US Open, and there were no complaints what-so-ever about how the tables played, people just noticed they banked better and played a little slower off the rails. No, Diamond didn't change the cushions or any thing else to make the tables play better. I simply redesigned the rails to align the cushion body better behind the nose of the cushion, which in turn, makes the cushions play to their fullest extent. But, if you try jamming a ball down the throat of the pocket like you're use to doing on a GC...THAT is still not going to happen, as Diamond don't have buckets for pockets that allow you to make that kind of a shot. BUT...grazing the cushion on a long rail shot headed to a corner pocket is going to have a better chance of going in the pocket much better now....because that ball that just barely touches the long rail cushion is not going to get kicked out quite as far anymore which is what made the pockets so unforgiving in the past.

And, as I've said in the past...Diamond didn't design their tables to win any beauty contest...they've always been more concerned in how they play first...then how they look second. But, even an English Bull dog is cute to the owner...but I think they're butt ugly...with their face skin drooping all over the place, big head, huge chest...small butt...kind of like the damn dog sitting right next to me at Zach's house....but...she grows on ya after a while:grin:

Glen
 
Glen I respect your abillity...

realkingcobra said:
I haven't come right out and said it before, but I'm going to say it now. I redesigned the rails on all Diamond tables earlier this year, changing the way they play. There is NO more banking short or BOINGING off the rails on the new Diamonds. The new design was used in the US Open, and there were no complaints what-so-ever about how the tables played, people just noticed they banked better and played a little slower off the rails. No, Diamond didn't change the cushions or any thing else to make the tables play better. I simply redesigned the rails to align the cushion body better behind the nose of the cushion, which in turn, makes the cushions play to their fullest extent. But, if you try jamming a ball down the throat of the pocket like you're use to doing on a GC...THAT is still not going to happen, as Diamond don't have buckets for pockets that allow you to make that kind of a shot. BUT...grazing the cushion on a long rail shot headed to a corner pocket is going to have a better chance of going in the pocket much better now....because that ball that just barely touches the long rail cushion is not going to get kicked out quite as far anymore which is what made the pockets so unforgiving in the past.

And, as I've said in the past...Diamond didn't design their tables to win any beauty contest...they've always been more concerned in how they play first...then how they look second. But, even an English Bull dog is cute to the owner...but I think they're butt ugly...with their face skin drooping all over the place, big head, huge chest...small butt...kind of like the damn dog sitting right next to me at Zach's house....but...she grows on ya after a while:grin:

Glen
Click to expand...

However, the self-agrandizement and berating of other mechanics gets old, and you just made my point.

You say that the new tables will ALLOW a grazed rail shot to fall easier than before but still REJECT a well played hard shot.

We both know that a gold crown with tighter face angles and tightened pockets will not reject balls as easily as a diamond if they're hit right, but GC's with wide face angles and looser pockets reject balls almost as easily but in a different way than diamonds. So it's a bit of a misnomer to blame loose GC pockets on their acceptance of well placed hard hit balls.

I haven't played on any new diamonds, when I do, if they don't do the aforementioned things that make me prefer GC's, I will come back on and state as much. IME though, diamonds have rejected well placed hard struck balls and the rails have bounced funny and short and have made things like reverse imparted spin more difficult to do.

Of course, many GC's I've played on have been poorly maintained and or setup wrong and have done the same thing, so it is more a mechanic issue than a table issue.

any table can be made to play well by a good mechanic, but I think that there have been some inherent flaws in the diamonds that I've played on to date that take away from the game.

It's similar to the argument against the measle ball. It eventually comes down to personal preference as to what you prefer, but there are certain designs that lend to certain frailties in ALL table manufacture.

Jaden
 
Jaden said:
However, the self-agrandizement and berating of other mechanics gets old, and you just made my point.

You say that the new tables will ALLOW a grazed rail shot to fall easier than before but still REJECT a well played hard shot.

We both know that a gold crown with tighter face angles and tightened pockets will not reject balls as easily as a diamond if they're hit right, but GC's with wide face angles and looser pockets reject balls almost as easily but in a different way than diamonds. So it's a bit of a misnomer to blame loose GC pockets on their acceptance of well placed hard hit balls.

I haven't played on any new diamonds, when I do, if they don't do the aforementioned things that make me prefer GC's, I will come back on and state as much. IME though, diamonds have rejected well placed hard struck balls and the rails have bounced funny and short and have made things like reverse imparted spin more difficult to do.

Of course, many GC's I've played on have been poorly maintained and or setup wrong and have done the same thing, so it is more a mechanic issue than a table issue.

any table can be made to play well by a good mechanic, but I think that there have been some inherent flaws in the diamonds that I've played on to date that take away from the game.

It's similar to the argument against the measle ball. It eventually comes down to personal preference as to what you prefer, but there are certain designs that lend to certain frailties in ALL table manufacture.

Jaden
Click to expand...

I agree 100%...now go hit some balls on the 4 9ft ProAms up at Sal's place in Moorpark and come back on here and tell me what you think:grin:
 
Jaden said:
However, the self-agrandizement and berating of other mechanics gets old, and you just made my point.
Click to expand...

First of all Jaden...I'm not going to back down as to who I am...and how much knowledge I have as a table mechanic, and it's because of what I do know...that I am able to do what I do to the level in which I do it. Further more, if people don't see better...then they'll never know there's better...and therefore....never demand for better....and without demanding for better...there'll NEVER be change...because CHANGE comes by way of seeing...and believing...that there IS a better way.

You say that the new tables will ALLOW a grazed rail shot to fall easier than before but still REJECT a well played hard shot.
Click to expand...

No...YOU determine what that well played shot is, but it's in YOUR opinion as to if the ball should have dropped or not...which may NOT be of the same opinion of someone else...because they in fact...may have felt that the ball shouldn't have dropped. So, in all fairness...the mass of players that play on Diamond tables would be a much better judge of what should...or shouldn't go...and it's not up to ONE person to decide that...for all others. SVB by the way...was really impressed at how the tables played used in the US Open...does his opinion mean more than that of yours?...hmmmm....go play on the tables at Sal's;)

Glen
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I will...

realkingcobra said:
I agree 100%...now go hit some balls on the 4 9ft ProAms up at Sal's place in Moorpark and come back on here and tell me what you think:grin:
Click to expand...

I"ll go up to Sal's and see how they play, doesn't he have a third saturday of the month added money tenball tourney or something???

Jaden
 
Glenn, when are you going to be in South Jersey so I can upgrade my table with these new rails?
 
New Diamonds

Realkingcobra, Do you know if the Diamonds for the December Turning Stone Classic will have the improved rail design? I'll be there and would love to see the improvements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top