How do these diamond tables play so badly? vid

Ghost of OBC said:
Let's see a video of you hitting a corner to corner three rail shot through the second diamond on the long rail on a Diamond. You will either be short on speed or the bank is short. Dr. Dave has a whole section of his site about adjusting for short banking Diamond tables. We aren't imagining it.

If you baby it, and maybe lengthen with running english you can make one rail kicks work on system, but they do not want to do it.
Click to expand...
The world champion banker said it here.
Diamonds bank shorter than GC.
Adjust accordingly..
 
smoochie said:
Thats fine if this is your preference but sometimes we could believe things that arent true if we are told it just like religions. Scientifically green is best for the eyes for "MAJORITY" of people, we dont care about minority. Plus again for the ties and classic looks we also care about majority here and maybe you if we do follow-suit the classic route just like snooker we as a sport grow bigger and perhaps you shouldnt watch either pool or snooker. the minority isnt the problem for us, we want the majority. And my suggestions work for the majority which will yield more money for pool in the long term.

Red dots cueball is horrible idea simply because it removed all the mystery of our game, as a player I do stuff with the cueball that mezmerize people who don't know how to play thats the idea, its like magic.........imagine a magician show you his magic of the cups & balls but with CLEAR CUPS, you get to see how he do his slight of hand and expose his whole magic, Thats literally what they done with pool and its ridiculous, I know people dont see it but I saw this centuries ago when they brought this red dotted cueball, it literally removed all the excitement of what the pro's are doing with the cueball because the non-pool player can now see whats happening, its so bad.

One guy above said the opposite, he said the red dotted cueball was created to add excitement and viewing pleasure so that they see the spin of the cueball, NOOOOOOOOOO it doesn't, its exactly the opposite lol. Please think deeply, i really need deep thinkers here. You have three type of people, 1) the top pro's, 2) the average player. 3) the non players only viewer. Ok, now there are certain shots where #2 knows how to execute but its difficult for them, and #3 knows nothing alright. When the pro do extreme things to the cueball and it got no dots in it, its like a mystery and it keeps everyone wanting to watch more so they could understand how the pro did it. But this already is removed because now we are exposed. We know exactly whats happening to the cueball even the average joe knows how the cueball is spinning. there's no excitement anymore.
Click to expand...
I see you claiming over and over that green is "scientifically easier on the eyes"... Well, I am still waiting for you to back up that claim with some sort of actual science. Until you do so, you are just kinda pulling thay straight out of your wazoo, expressing your OPINION, and cloaking it by claiming science backs you up.

I would go so far as to say it is CONTRAST between cloth and balls (and the shadow under the balls) that is easiest on the eyes. On green cloth (and with older color balls), the color of the darker balls, cloth, and shadows beneath the ball all merge together, and you have to strain your eyes to separate the actual ball from the cloth/shadows. Guess what? This is not a problem when the cloth creates clear contrast between ball, shadows, and cloth. Such as... With tournament blue.

And bruh.... You "mesmerize people with your spin"? Lol....

Lololololol... I doubt you play anywhere near 650 Fargo speed, and I am being a little generous here. You seem like a dude with very low self esteem about your game, and covering up with just so much bloviating nonsense. No one who plays extremely well obsesses about the crap you are.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
I see you claiming over and over that green is "scientifically easier on the eyes"... Well, I am still waiting for you to back up that claim with some sort of actual science. Until you do so, you are just kinda pulling thay straight out of your wazoo, expressing your OPINION, and cloaking it by claiming science backs you up.

I would go so far as to say it is CONTRAST between cloth and balls (and the shadow under the balls) that is easiest on the eyes. On green cloth (and with older color balls), the color of the darker balls, cloth, and shadows beneath the ball all merge together, and you have to strain your eyes to separate the actual ball from the cloth/shadows. Guess what? This is not a problem when the cloth creates clear contrast between ball, shadows, and cloth. Such as... With tournament blue.

And bruh.... You "mesmerize people with your spin"? Lol....

Lololololol... I doubt you play anywhere near 650 Fargo speed, and I am being a little generous here. You seem like a dude with very low self esteem about your game, and covering up with just so much bloviating nonsense. No one who plays extremely well obsesses about the crap you are.
Click to expand...
I saw your response to me earlier but haven't got the time to reply yet. I am preparing a big reply especially for you but ill have to save it for some other time I feel it will take a long time because right now my house is plagued with an unknown virus, and all my 3 kids have high fevers, my wife is sick with chest pain and I got a fever myself too. In fact, I just came back from the doctor for the second time.

Once I'm done with all this ill get back to your previous lengthy post point by point. Otherwise please accept my apologies if I offended you with my ideas because I feel that you're mad at me or something for having some different views.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
I see you claiming over and over that green is "scientifically easier on the eyes"... Well, I am still waiting for you to back up that claim with some sort of actual science. Until you do so, you are just kinda pulling thay straight out of your wazoo, expressing your OPINION, and cloaking it by claiming science backs you up.

I would go so far as to say it is CONTRAST between cloth and balls (and the shadow under the balls) that is easiest on the eyes. On green cloth (and with older color balls), the color of the darker balls, cloth, and shadows beneath the ball all merge together, and you have to strain your eyes to separate the actual ball from the cloth/shadows. Guess what? This is not a problem when the cloth creates clear contrast between ball, shadows, and cloth. Such as... With tournament blue.

And bruh.... You "mesmerize people with your spin"? Lol....

Lololololol... I doubt you play anywhere near 650 Fargo speed, and I am being a little generous here. You seem like a dude with very low self esteem about your game, and covering up with just so much bloviating nonsense. No one who plays extremely well obsesses about the crap you are.
Click to expand...
I agree - I would definitely would like to hear this research on green. As a former "green screen" software developer, I had a college friend who was studying optometry mentioned that it was not good on the eyes and later on I changed it so my code would be written in amber yellow and two subsequent eye doctors of mine agreed that it was smart because green is not a color that is easy on the eyes.
 
KeithS66 said:
I agree - I would definitely would like to hear this research on green. As a former "green screen" software developer, I had a college friend who was studying optometry mentioned that it was not good on the eyes and later on I changed it so my code would be written in amber yellow and two subsequent eye doctors of mine agreed that it was smart because green is not a color that is easy on the eyes.
Click to expand...
better stay in the house then, all those green trees and grass will make you sickly.
 
Dunnn51 said:
So Monarch cushions were prior to Superspeed? What did Diamond have back at that time?
I wonder if there are STATS on how often PRO's bank on a Diamond vs a Gold Crown.
Click to expand...
Here is a pic of my original cushions on my 1961 Anniversary D-C OS-8. I went into the wayback machine and found this old pic.

They were called Superspeeds (Monarch Superspeeds), back then. I do not why Brunswick decided to go to a K-55 profile (RKC question).

I stand corrected in my nomenclature, RKC! (as your years of experience far exceed mine!).

I was under the impression that the Monarch SS cushions were used on the Centennial, Anniversary and GC I/II only.

I did not know that that they were used all the way up to the early GC IIIs. Thanks, RKC... Gianni
 

Attachments

  • SS_Cush1.jpg
    SS_Cush1.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 94
Ghost of OBC said:
Let's see a video of you hitting a corner to corner three rail shot through the second diamond on the long rail on a Diamond. You will either be short on speed or the bank is short. Dr. Dave has a whole section of his site about adjusting for short banking Diamond tables. We aren't imagining it.

If you baby it, and maybe lengthen with running english you can make one rail kicks work on system, but they do not want to do it.
Click to expand...
HERE YOU GO
 
ShortBusRuss said:
I see you claiming over and over that green is "scientifically easier on the eyes"... Well, I am still waiting for you to back up that claim with some sort of actual science. Until you do so, you are just kinda pulling thay straight out of your wazoo, expressing your OPINION, and cloaking it by claiming science backs you up.

I would go so far as to say it is CONTRAST between cloth and balls (and the shadow under the balls) that is easiest on the eyes. On green cloth (and with older color balls), the color of the darker balls, cloth, and shadows beneath the ball all merge together, and you have to strain your eyes to separate the actual ball from the cloth/shadows. Guess what? This is not a problem when the cloth creates clear contrast between ball, shadows, and cloth. Such as... With tournament blue.

And bruh.... You "mesmerize people with your spin"? Lol....

Lololololol... I doubt you play anywhere near 650 Fargo speed, and I am being a little generous here. You seem like a dude with very low self esteem about your game, and covering up with just so much bloviating nonsense. No one who plays extremely well obsesses about the crap you are.
Click to expand...
Well said. This makes me think of all the players who whine about pockets being too big and they couldn't run a four ball out with bih. Simonis did consult some vision folks on this but i've never seen a concrete/scientific break-down of their conclusions on cloth color. I've been told by a few streamers that tournament blue was chosen for its appearance on video more than anything else.
 
book collector said:
better stay in the house then, all those green trees and grass will make you sickly.
Click to expand...
LOL Not quite sickly. I'm a nature photographer now so I'm not indoors very much, but in terms of light staring at a green screen it definitely can be hard on the eyes in terms of vision. From a photographers point of view I just finished the summer phase of a project I'm working on and I am looking forward to the central Ohio fall for the next phase. I've seen a lot of green the past few months lol
 
Last edited:
neolux said:
Here is a pic of my original cushions on my 1961 Anniversary D-C OS-8. I went into the wayback machine and found this old pic.

They were called Superspeeds (Monarch Superspeeds), back then. I do not why Brunswick decided to go to a K-55 profile (RKC question).

I stand corrected in my nomenclature, RKC! (as your years of experience far exceed mine!).

I was under the impression that the Monarch SS cushions were used on the Centennial, Anniversary and GC I/II only.

I did not know that that they were used all the way up to the early GC IIIs. Thanks, RKC... Gianni
Click to expand...
The Monarch K55 is the triangle profile of the cushions, unlike the K66 profile, even though they both measure 1 1/8" wide across the top, the K66 sits an 1/8" higher on the Brunswick subrail bevel.
 
neolux said:
Here is a pic of my original cushions on my 1961 Anniversary D-C OS-8. I went into the wayback machine and found this old pic.

They were called Superspeeds (Monarch Superspeeds), back then. I do not why Brunswick decided to go to a K-55 profile (RKC question).

I stand corrected in my nomenclature, RKC! (as your years of experience far exceed mine!).

I was under the impression that the Monarch SS cushions were used on the Centennial, Anniversary and GC I/II only.

I did not know that that they were used all the way up to the early GC IIIs. Thanks, RKC... Gianni
Click to expand...
Ya learn something new everyday😄
 
ShortBusRuss said:
I see you claiming over and over that green is "scientifically easier on the eyes"... Well, I am still waiting for you to back up that claim with some sort of actual science. Until you do so, you are just kinda pulling thay straight out of your wazoo, expressing your OPINION, and cloaking it by claiming science backs you up.

I would go so far as to say it is CONTRAST between cloth and balls (and the shadow under the balls) that is easiest on the eyes. On green cloth (and with older color balls), the color of the darker balls, cloth, and shadows beneath the ball all merge together, and you have to strain your eyes to separate the actual ball from the cloth/shadows. Guess what? This is not a problem when the cloth creates clear contrast between ball, shadows, and cloth. Such as... With tournament blue.

And bruh.... You "mesmerize people with your spin"? Lol....

Lololololol... I doubt you play anywhere near 650 Fargo speed, and I am being a little generous here. You seem like a dude with very low self esteem about your game, and covering up with just so much bloviating nonsense. No one who plays extremely well obsesses about the crap you are.
Click to expand...
I have never heard that green is "easier" on the eyes either. I did read though that humans developed thru evolution the ability to see more shades of green than any other color due to fact that many, many moons ago they were hunter/gatherers and green is the predominant color in nature (at least where humans lived at the time).
 
The way I heard the story was someone from the pool industry paid the Pantone color company 5,000 USD about 20 years ago to develop a cloth color best for pool.

I don't know if it's true. I find it hard to believe any pool player (even as part of a pool company) would ever pay that type of money to pick a color.

Me personally, I've played on green, blue, yellowish, etc. I never really noticed any playing difference on any of them. Mostly just what is pretty from a decor standpoint.
 
iusedtoberich said:
The way I heard the story was someone from the pool industry paid the Pantone color company 5,000 USD about 20 years ago to develop a cloth color best for pool.

I don't know if it's true. I find it hard to believe any pool player (even as part of a pool company) would ever pay that type of money to pick a color.

Me personally, I've played on green, blue, yellowish, etc. I never really noticed any playing difference on any of them. Mostly just what is pretty from a decor standpoint.
Click to expand...
For once, your first paragraph is correct😅
 
KeithS66 said:
LOL Not quite sickly. I'm a nature photographer now so I'm not indoors very much, but in terms of light staring at a green screen it definitely can be hard on the eyes in terms of vision. From a photographers point of view I just finished the summer phase of a project I'm working on and I am looking forward to the central Ohio fall for the next phase. I've seen a lot of green the past few months lol
Click to expand...
Go to the old Mans Caves area south of Logan , you won't regret it . Blendon Woods is nice also but not a lot of variety. I am from Columbus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top