Measle ball, i HATE it

[Doc Holliday]

I used to work at a billiard supply store and we had this same discussion, we weighed the red circle, measles and plain white aramith cue balls, along with all the object balls in several aramith sets...all wieghed 6.0 oz.....Surprising fact, the oversize bar table ball, which we all agree plays like it wieghs a ton....6.4 oz was all it came out to.....That being said, I always speculated that the surface coating on the red circle ball make it play like crap, feels as if it ricochets off object balls and takes slightly longer to bend forward of the tangent line on follow shots, but will react overly soon on a draw shot. Just my .02

 

[hang-the-9]

I highly doubt anyone who is blindfolded and asked to shoot at the varying types of balls would be able to tell the difference even 25% of the time. It's sort of encouraging for me to try this experiment and ask 50 different pool players to take the "Pepsi Challenge" on this topic. Those of you who think you are 100% in tune with those balls would find how mistaken you are on the differences in balls is. Sure, there are differences, but I don't believe those differences to be great enough to detect them accurately or with any consistency.

I can tell every time how a cueball reacts. They did a cueball swap at a tournament from the Centennial to one of the Aramith, I think the red circle. The thing does not draw nearly as well as the Centennial and pushes though the rest of the balls in the set. Everyone noticed, not just me. Mike Dechaine was playing at the table next to me and he said that the cueball was doing funny stuff. My opponent, as soon as I said the cueball was not right with this set, said "you know, I thought it was just me, but you're right, it's not reacting the same as the other one".

I've played around with different ball sets and different cueballs, a shot that would draw the ball 3-4 inches back with one cueball will end up in a stop shot with another.

 

[trob]

The measle ball has the Carom finish on it, so it will slide/spin in place a bit more. It is dead nuts in weight along with the rest of the Aramith balls, definitely not heavier. The blue circle cueball that comes with the Centennial set actually weighs more than the measle ball.

Maybe that's it. There sized the same but as a daily player of 25 years you can't tell me there isn't a difference of some kind. I can definitely feel it... The spots on the ball don't bother me a bit

 

[Bavafongoul]

I've posted before about cue ball weights and pool ball sets.
Here's the truth.....the rules allow for variance in pool ball weight up to 1/2 ounce (5.5 ozs to 6.0 ozs).
I dunno why but the rules allow it.....even within the same set of pool balls being played in a match.
I currently own two sets of Centennial Pool Balls and previously owned two other sets.

Fact: Different cue balls weigh different weights.
Fact: The Measles Ball weighs 169 grams....I own three and all three weigh 169 grams. One cue ball sees lots of play too.
Fact: The red dot cue ball is the lightest at 157-58 grams.
Fact: All the pool balls in a set do not have to be the same weight (1/2 ounce variance permissible).

The Centennial line by Aramith has the best looks/specs/tolerances I've ever seen....better than other Aramith versions, Raschig, or that horrid looking Cyclop pool balls. Every ball in both my Centennial sets weigh 168 grams...I sold a set two months ago and all the balls in that set weighed 168 grams....even all the cue balls.

When you switch from a cue ball that weighs 168 grams and play with one that weighs 169 grams, i.e., Centennial cue ball vs the Measles cue ball, there's no discernible difference whatsoever. Not so if you go from a red dot cue ball to a Measles cue ball.....big difference, especially with using draw strokes.

The Measles cue ball weight of 169 grams makes it perfectly suited as a substitute cue ball for using with the Centennial balls (168 grams). I'm not saying you'll prefer it versus some other cue ball or using a Measles cue ball with a different set of balls that might have weight variances....remember the rules allow for the balls to not all weigh the same......pool balls only have to weight 5.5 ozs min to 6.0 ozs. max. However, if you understand the difference in cue balls and pool ball weights, then you'll better appreciate the difference in results attained that's dictated by the laws of physics. ex. mass/velocity etc. Science really does matter a whole lot.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I've posted before about cue ball weights and pool ball sets.
Here's the truth.....the rules allow for variance in pool ball weight up to 1/2 ounce (5.5 ozs to 6.0 ozs).
I dunno why but the rules allow it.....even within the same set of pool balls being played in a match.
I currently own two sets of Centennial Pool Balls and previously owned two other sets.

Fact: Different cue balls weigh different weights.
Fact: The Measles Ball weighs 169 grams....I own three and all three weigh 169 grams. One cue ball sees lots of play too.
Fact: The red dot cue ball is the lightest at 157-58 grams.
Fact: All the pool balls in a set do not have to be the same weight (1/2 ounce variance permissible).

The Centennial line by Aramith has the best looks/specs/tolerances I've ever seen....better than other Aramith versions, Raschig, or that horrid looking Cyclop pool balls. Every ball in both my Centennial sets weigh 168 grams...I sold a set two months ago and all the balls in that set weighed 168 grams....even all the cue balls.

When you switch from a cue ball that weighs 168 grams and play with one that weighs 169 grams, i.e., Centennial cue ball vs the Measles cue ball, there's no discernible difference whatsoever. Not so if you go from a red dot cue ball to a Measles cue ball.....big difference, especially with using draw strokes.

The Measles cue ball weight of 169 grams makes it perfectly suited as a substitute cue ball for using with the Centennial balls (168 grams). I'm not saying you'll prefer it versus some other cue ball or using a Measles cue ball with a different set of balls that might have weight variances....remember the rules allow for the balls to not all weigh the same......pool balls only have to weight 5.5 ozs min to 6.0 ozs. max. However, if you understand the difference in cue balls and pool ball weights, then you'll better appreciate the difference in results attained that's dictated by the laws of physics. ex. mass/velocity etc. Science really does matter a whole lot.

Thank you. I wanted to weigh my ball set at the university scales, but now I don't have to:smile:. However I do not believe that weight is the only factor in play here. There is also the elasticity of the material (phenolic resin) and the surface coating. It's like certain "scientists" back in the day that felt that all amplifiers should sound the same, so long as they measured the same (using the methods of the day). Of course they did not know what they did not know, and that was that there were other forms of distortion which they did not know how to accurately measure at the time. Anyone with ears could easily hear differences, but since they could not measure it, many "scientists" ignored the obvious and actually ridiculed those who did hear it. I am not anti- science (have a degree) but I feel that one should always keep ones mind open to the possibility that one does not know everything.

I have actually measured my ball set at a rather accurate scale at home and they were all pretty close. Still, I feel that the cueball acts more like a carom ball than a pool ball. If this turns out to be just my mind playing tricks on me, I can live with that. Even though one can never "turn off'" ones scientific mindset I try my best to play by intuition and feel. I believe it was Nietzsche who said "We all know that nothing can be done perfectly as long as it is done consciously" (poorly translated and paraphrased from memory).

 

[Straightpool_99]

I've posted before about cue ball weights and pool ball sets.
Here's the truth.....the rules allow for variance in pool ball weight up to 1/2 ounce (5.5 ozs to 6.0 ozs).
I dunno why but the rules allow it.....even within the same set of pool balls being played in a match.
I currently own two sets of Centennial Pool Balls and previously owned two other sets.

Fact: Different cue balls weigh different weights.
Fact: The Measles Ball weighs 169 grams....I own three and all three weigh 169 grams. One cue ball sees lots of play too.
Fact: The red dot cue ball is the lightest at 157-58 grams.
Fact: All the pool balls in a set do not have to be the same weight (1/2 ounce variance permissible).

The Centennial line by Aramith has the best looks/specs/tolerances I've ever seen....better than other Aramith versions, Raschig, or that horrid looking Cyclop pool balls. Every ball in both my Centennial sets weigh 168 grams...I sold a set two months ago and all the balls in that set weighed 168 grams....even all the cue balls.

When you switch from a cue ball that weighs 168 grams and play with one that weighs 169 grams, i.e., Centennial cue ball vs the Measles cue ball, there's no discernible difference whatsoever. Not so if you go from a red dot cue ball to a Measles cue ball.....big difference, especially with using draw strokes.

The Measles cue ball weight of 169 grams makes it perfectly suited as a substitute cue ball for using with the Centennial balls (168 grams). I'm not saying you'll prefer it versus some other cue ball or using a Measles cue ball with a different set of balls that might have weight variances....remember the rules allow for the balls to not all weigh the same......pool balls only have to weight 5.5 ozs min to 6.0 ozs. max. However, if you understand the difference in cue balls and pool ball weights, then you'll better appreciate the difference in results attained that's dictated by the laws of physics. ex. mass/velocity etc. Science really does matter a whole lot.

Thank you. I wanted to weigh my ball set at the university scales, but now I don't have to:smile:. However I do not believe that weight is the only factor in play here. There is also the elasticity of the material (phenolic resin) and the surface coating. It's like certain "scientists" back in the day that felt that all amplifiers should sound the same, so long as they measured the same (using the methods of the day). Of course they did not know what they did not know, and that was that there were other forms of distortion which they did not know how to accurately measure at the time. Anyone with ears could easily hear differences, but since they could not measure it, many "scientists" ignored the obvious and actually ridiculed those who did hear it. I am not anti- science (have a degree) but I feel that one should always keep ones mind open to the possibility that one does not know everything.

I have actually measured my ball set at a rather accurate scale at home and they were all pretty close. Still, I feel that the cueball acts more like a carom ball than a pool ball. If this turns out to be just my mind playing tricks on me, I can live with that. Even though one can never "turn off'" ones scientific mindset I try my best to play by intuition and feel. I believe it was Nietzsche who said "We all know that nothing can be done perfectly as long as it is done consciously" (poorly translated and paraphrased from memory).

 

[scottjen26]

Certain cue balls may play "heavier" or "lighter", even though the weight may in fact be spot on. I always attributed this to either the finish (as mentioned) or perhaps some differences in the density or composition of the material used or perhaps differences in any sort of core that might be present in the ball.

For me personally, I don't mind the measles ball at all. It was weird at first, but now I prefer them for pool and carom. Just makes it easier to get visual feedback on shots etc. There really is no issue drawing the ball, it can be drawn 1 table length quite easily and I can get 2 tables plus a little with a good stroke.

One of the cue balls I used to use (can't remember, maybe blue circle?) always felt easier to move around the table, but just like with table conditions we tend to compensate and adjust rather quickly and very subconsciously so it's not really an issue for most. Some people just may be a little more sensitive to the differences or have more difficulties adjusting.
Scott

 

[jsp]

Haven't read the entire thread yet but I'm guessing you're probably used to playing with a red circle CB which plays LIGHT and unless you're used to it does everything slightly wrong with high/low/stun hits. Now you're playing with a ball that is more truer weight compared to all the OBs in that particular set and is coming off the OBs as they're supposed to.

My experience agrees with what you say here. Ever since buying my home table about 6 years ago, I've really only played with the measles ball and the red circle. The measles clearly plays more 'heavy' than the red circle, and with the red circle I'm at least a ball better when playing the ghost.

But I experimented shooting around with an OB as the CB, and I've found that the OB plays more similarly to the measles than the red circle. IOW, an OB plays just as heavy as the measles (if not, a bit heavier). After realizing this I've changed my perspective. I no longer think the measles ball plays too heavy, but rather that the red circle ball plays too light.

I'm a huge fan of symmetry, and it just feels 'right' that the OB and CB should play exactly the same. The CB should be lighter or play more lively just because it's the CB. However, for me the game is more fun with the red circle, mainly because my game is better with it. I'm rather torn.

 

[CJ Wiley]

because of the "differences"......I like the "Blue Dot/Circle" or Red Circle.

When the Aramith TV-Pro set first came out I was one of the first to buy it. This was the future and many enthusiasts at the club also brought measle cueballs with them in their case to the pool hall. It's been the standard ballset at most pool halls for many years now.

First impressions was that the cueball played "heavy", but that was to be expected, since most cueballs at pool halls have been worn down and therefore are lighter. Also I hated the colours but I thought I would get used to them over time and I have, but I dont like them. Even though I have played with these pool balls exclusively for many years now, I still feel that the cueball is not behaving "right". It's like a carom ball, no matter what you do to it, it wants to roll forward. It's not that I can't draw or anything like that, but the draw feels all wrong, and the stun shots especially feel wrong to me.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine invited me to play a game with a Brunswick Centennial set he purchased from the closed down pool hall where I used to play, and wow the good feeling was back, after all these years. It's strange that my mind could retain the feeling after all these years, but these were the pool balls I learned to play with. The cueball was plain white. It was not smaller or lighter it just behaved differently. Strangely when I look at a plain white cueball now, it looks smaller. It's some sort of optical illusion I think because I measured with the rack and it really isn't smaller.

I heard the new top of the line Aramith cueball is playing even "heavier" than the measle ball, I sure hope that is not the case. At the moment I'm practising with an old Joe Tucker aiming by the numbers cue ball, which acts closer to the Brunswick centennial balls than the measle one. And tomorrow I'm buying an Aramith plain white replacement cueball.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Yes, the Cue Ball makes the game too easy, but not at first, you do have to practice or it'll drive you crazy - it hardly takes any effort to move the ball around because of the "differences," but they're not "good" differences in my opinion......I prefer the "Blue Dot/Circle" or Red Circle.

 

[Magog30]

I prefer the measle ball, and I do agree that it is harder to move around the table.

 

[THE FLASH]

Wierd... I get a lot more action with the measle ball, than a standard. As you call it cue ball. Whatever.. I like em.

 

[CreeDo]

The main thing for me is that the cue ball and object balls aren't different.

I slightly prefer the measles ball and when I use the local worn whatever-brand cueball,
it feels very light and skittish. But it moves about the same way the object balls do.

So given the choice I'd rather have them all react at sort of the same predictable speed
than have the cue ball "feel" heavier than the object ball on every shot.

 

[sfleinen]

My experience agrees with what you say here. Ever since buying my home table about 6 years ago, I've really only played with the measles ball and the red circle. The measles clearly plays more 'heavy' than the red circle, and with the red circle I'm at least a ball better when playing the ghost.

But I experimented shooting around with an OB as the CB, and I've found that the OB plays more similarly to the measles than the red circle. IOW, an OB plays just as heavy as the measles (if not, a bit heavier). After realizing this I've changed my perspective. I no longer think the measles ball plays too heavy, but rather that the red circle ball plays too light.

I'm a huge fan of symmetry, and it just feels 'right' that the OB and CB should play exactly the same. The CB should be lighter or play more lively just because it's the CB. However, for me the game is more fun with the red circle, mainly because my game is better with it. I'm rather torn.

^^^ This. This is what is meant by a "matched" set (meaning, cue ball -to- object balls). The only time this "should" be different is on those old barboxes that use weight- or magnetic-actuated cue ball return mechanisms. On a non-coin-op table, "cue ball to object ball differentiation for the purposes of cue ball return" is a wash; the cue ball instead should be matched to the object balls.

Of course, the red circle diehards will stick to the "you'll pry my red circle from my cold, dead fingers," but then again, it probably also says the same thing about the game they play -- short-rack rotation.

I like a cue ball to "prefer" to "stick," rather than run around. If I want it to run around, all I have to do is let my stroke out. Let the stroke determine what the cue ball does; not the cue ball have a tendency to do something otherwise, "just to cater to" a particular game.

-Sean

 

[Pidge]

I use the Pro Cup set for home use and they play perfect. The one downside I've had with the measles cue ball though is that it needs cleaning often. I find my self cleaning it every other day, but only clean the rest of the set every month, if that. When it gets dirty that's when I notice it playing heavier. Draw becomes more of an effort, side spin off the rails doesn't play as it should and I get a lot of kicks. But, when they're in "TV shape" they are the best I've ever used. Makes the game seem easier.

You can't comment on just a cue ball though. Cue balls were designed to be used with a specific set of balls for optimum consistency so mixing and matching is going to make any cue ball play different than what you expect. My pool hall for example spends so much money and devotes so much time into the tables they've forgot about the ball sets. Each table has a set of balls and each set of balls are different models...why they didn't buy the same sets I don't know, but over time they have become mixed. The OBs don't match and therefore the CBs don't match. Life is very much like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get. You don't know if follow on this shot is going to make the CB hop up, or take straight away. Makes hitting a decent run in something like 14.1 a lottery.

Bottom line IMO is if you have a matching set they should play good regardless of the set.

 

[3andstop]

I don't like the measle ball one bit. Heavier or not it plays like a chuck of lead compared to other CBs.

Must be something with the type of plastic they used. I believe it goes beyond the finish of the ball. Nothing feels right with it.

Not even following a shot off the rail with running inside english. It seems to take sharper angles off the rail. I dunno .... I don't like it.

 

[backplaying]

When the Aramith TV-Pro set first came out I was one of the first to buy it. This was the future and many enthusiasts at the club also brought measle cueballs with them in their case to the pool hall. It's been the standard ballset at most pool halls for many years now.

First impressions was that the cueball played "heavy", but that was to be expected, since most cueballs at pool halls have been worn down and therefore are lighter. Also I hated the colours but I thought I would get used to them over time and I have, but I dont like them. Even though I have played with these pool balls exclusively for many years now, I still feel that the cueball is not behaving "right". It's like a carom ball, no matter what you do to it, it wants to roll forward. It's not that I can't draw or anything like that, but the draw feels all wrong, and the stun shots especially feel wrong to me.

A couple of days ago a friend of mine invited me to play a game with a Brunswick Centennial set he purchased from the closed down pool hall where I used to play, and wow the good feeling was back, after all these years. It's strange that my mind could retain the feeling after all these years, but these were the pool balls I learned to play with. The cueball was plain white. It was not smaller or lighter it just behaved differently. Strangely when I look at a plain white cueball now, it looks smaller. It's some sort of optical illusion I think because I measured with the rack and it really isn't smaller.

I heard the new top of the line Aramith cueball is playing even "heavier" than the measle ball, I sure hope that is not the case. At the moment I'm practising with an old Joe Tucker aiming by the numbers cue ball, which acts closer to the Brunswick centennial balls than the measle one. And tomorrow I'm buying an Aramith plain white replacement cueball.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I have only played with one a few times with the poka dot ball, and of course I don't like it, since it plays nothing like a red circle. It is tougher to draw, the spots get in my eye and it deflects off of the ob different. If it is the same weight there is something in it that makes it react different than a red circle, which I think is the best cue ball made. I know several top players that didn't like it to start with, but now prefer them over others.

 

[Black-Balled]

I've heard about this problem, but I have never actually seen it. That is, I think I may have but I am not sure. Sometimes the cueball will visibly "settle" at a specific point on the table. I always attributed this to the cloth, but maybe it can be the cueball as well, at least some of the time.

It would be great if someone could dig up a video of this, I am curious to see. I have a really old Tv-Pro set. Unfortunately I sort of "baby" them beeing a 14.1 player and all, so I am not sure if my set has this problem. But I do have a stereo microscope with zoom. I bought it cheap on Ebay and repaired it myself but the prism for the photo-port is broken so I can't take any pictures at the moment. Maybe I can rig something up using the eyepiece. I'm dying to see this.

I have also seen the measle ball settle. A place I go to play 3c has a ball set that I was using that did it.

They run the ball sets through the washer very often, even hourly, if in continued play.

 

[Bambu]

^^^ This. This is what is meant by a "matched" set (meaning, cue ball -to- object balls). The only time this "should" be different is on those old barboxes that use weight- or magnetic-actuated cue ball return mechanisms. On a non-coin-op table, "cue ball to object ball differentiation for the purposes of cue ball return" is a wash; the cue ball instead should be matched to the object balls.

Of course, the red circle diehards will stick to the "you'll pry my red circle from my cold, dead fingers," but then again, it probably also says the same thing about the game they play -- short-rack rotation.

I like a cue ball to "prefer" to "stick," rather than run around. If I want it to run around, all I have to do is let my stroke out. Let the stroke determine what the cue ball does; not the cue ball have a tendency to do something otherwise, "just to cater to" a particular game.

-Sean

That's a good point, Sean. Because the red circle is easier to draw, its generally preferred for 9 ball. The blue circle, preferred for straight pool.

Most pool rooms I've seen though, do not carry blue circle balls. Sometimes its because the cue ball has been replaced. (As someone here said, its not so easy buying a new, blue circle ball.) Also because straight pool these days isn't what it used to be. Its nice to prefer a certain ball, but better to be prepared to use any cue ball.

One last thought we all know: Sometimes you think a cue ball doesn't draw well, but its just dirty!

 

[Maniac]

I once had the measles, and my balls had red circles on them :sorry:!!!

Maniac

 

[FranCrimi]

I agree that there's something different about how the measle ball plays. I don't understand why Aramith doesn't use the same process for making that ball as they do with their highest end pool balls.

I don't understand how a pool ball manufacturer wouldn't recognize the importance of doing that. Instead it seams that they're making a cue ball that it isn't compatible with any of their object balls. Where is the logic in that??

I've always had issues with matching cue balls and object balls in the Aramith sets. The only true matched set I've found over the years was the blue circle that came with Brunswick Centennials. (Not the fake blue circles that are circulating around today). And years before that it was the blue dot that came with the Centennials. Now it's a total crap shoot as to what you're going to get. It's a shame, really.