And as if the OT/OP needed clarification, The balls bend wider on new cloth. Hit harder, you get more air, less bend.
New cloth effects on banks?
- Thread starter measureman
- Start date
Diamond tried that. The first generation Diamond had Brunswick SuperSpeed cushions. Unfortunately, SuperSpeed weren't very good when they were no longer made in the US. Diamond switched to Championship then to the German Artemis. They still had banking problems. Hence, the newer Blue Label edition.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
So, initially, was Diamond attempting to replicate GCs' banking but failed due to its inability to source acceptable cushions? I have not played on any newer model GC. Am I to understand that the newer model GCs do not bank like the older model GCs?
Just wondering. I would hate to go out and buy the latest model only to acquire additional unmet expectations at such an exorbitant price. I cannot imagine the resulting depth of disappointment and despair.
Just wondering. I would hate to go out and buy the latest model only to acquire additional unmet expectations at such an exorbitant price. I cannot imagine the resulting depth of disappointment and despair.
Oh please. What a load of malarkey. If D's were the table back then you would have still played because that was what was in use. You'd have nothing to compare to. This constant DDS, DiamondDerangementSyndrom, is laughable and really getting old. Don't like them don't play.
Wasn't just rubber they changed. The sub-rail angle was changed and made a huge difference. Blue labels play fine. These D haters need to get over it. I play on both GC's and D's and yes, there is a difference, but its nothing you can't quickly adapt to.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
I do not like them, don't play on them, and will curse them with my dying breath -- oh the treachery!
good for you.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
This is the problem -- I have made many successful adjustments. So have many others. It seems Diamonds require something more than I am able to supply -- so F 'em. I am the keeper of an incendiary temper. I've survived these many years by learning (sometimes through the hardest) how and when to walk away. It was either quit 'em or start burning 'em.
Last edited:
These are my own feelings - how much of this site would you like to control? Everything??
Negative comments on how a person believes that they would have reacted to circumstances is not warranted nor appreciated. Enough said.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
We must all learn to forgive shortcomings -- our own as well as other's. We must learn to appreciate and understand ourselves and others for what we are and what we are not -- good and bad alike. The greatest graces I have ever realized are the abilities to accept that I have been wrong and to confess my error aloud as often and loudly as necessary -- muttered mea culpas serve none of us very well.
While I followed regularly, I refused to enroll as an AZ member for many years because I considered it to be a bottomless cesspool of vitriol and recrimination. I kept coming back, however, and finally joined, because I kept catching these rays of sunshine rising from the abyss. I will not name names because I was not here enough to be really qualified to do so, but the old hands know whom the sinners and saints were.
This cyber world we inhabit is a grand experiment. It is incredible to be able to consider the amount of pool knowledge exchanged here. No pool hall in the world could ever compare. Pool is way more art than science and, accordingly, much of what we share is not fact but opinion. At different times we are all right and wrong. How we say things is every bit as important as what we say.
Because we are are not sitting across from each other, behavior and intent are not always easily and accurately assessed. There are some folks who "contribute" who are so absolutely full of shit that they are easily ignored. Then there is a guy like Cocobolo Cowboy who was soooo difficult to understand but whose ideas were many times worth the effort it took to dig them out. Then there are folks like me who sometimes happen to catch the wind and blah. blah . . .
What I have been trying to get to is that none of us are perfect and many times we do not take the time and effort to think about how we sound and how we come across. But we should. We must -- for a lot of reasons. We all share a deep love of the greatest game in the world, and among all of us, we possess a tremendous fund of useful knowledge. Ultimately, the big reason for AZ and us all being here is to allow us to share our love and our knowledge of pool. If it accomplishes this, we need it. The rest we can do without.
Amen. Go and sin no more.
While I followed regularly, I refused to enroll as an AZ member for many years because I considered it to be a bottomless cesspool of vitriol and recrimination. I kept coming back, however, and finally joined, because I kept catching these rays of sunshine rising from the abyss. I will not name names because I was not here enough to be really qualified to do so, but the old hands know whom the sinners and saints were.
This cyber world we inhabit is a grand experiment. It is incredible to be able to consider the amount of pool knowledge exchanged here. No pool hall in the world could ever compare. Pool is way more art than science and, accordingly, much of what we share is not fact but opinion. At different times we are all right and wrong. How we say things is every bit as important as what we say.
Because we are are not sitting across from each other, behavior and intent are not always easily and accurately assessed. There are some folks who "contribute" who are so absolutely full of shit that they are easily ignored. Then there is a guy like Cocobolo Cowboy who was soooo difficult to understand but whose ideas were many times worth the effort it took to dig them out. Then there are folks like me who sometimes happen to catch the wind and blah. blah . . .
What I have been trying to get to is that none of us are perfect and many times we do not take the time and effort to think about how we sound and how we come across. But we should. We must -- for a lot of reasons. We all share a deep love of the greatest game in the world, and among all of us, we possess a tremendous fund of useful knowledge. Ultimately, the big reason for AZ and us all being here is to allow us to share our love and our knowledge of pool. If it accomplishes this, we need it. The rest we can do without.
Amen. Go and sin no more.
Last edited:
You have made more than one post about how you can't stop beating everyone, and have to keep making the spot bigger. Even with the biggest spots, they can't win, and so on.
The handwringing humblebragging was unreal, and coupled with the ignorance in your post is now even funnier
Not true I was only talking about 2 guys I have to spot,not everyone in the room.
I don't want to control anything. Just responded to what i thought was a statement that made no sense. If you had walked into a room as a kid and the tables were all Diamonds you still would have started playing because you had no other table to compare to. Does that not make sense to you?
I will take the time to respond to you. first of all- please take the time to read and understand what people say in this forum by reading and trying to understand their entire post - that would show that you are truly engaged in conversations here with other members and not just trying to prove your own opinions as being correct above everything or everybody else.
MY post started by explaining my take on Brunswick going into the newly booming billiard market in the early 60s with tables that had very generous pockets compared to the now highly prolific Diamond Pro cuts that I personally see most rooms adopting- both 7 and 9 footers. So we are talking Brunswicks the were 4 7/8 at average compared to 4 1/2. In fact, a BCA handbook that I had from that era listed corner pocket size as 4 7/8 to 5 1/8 as standards.
I was recalling my first time in a billiard room with friends as a 15 year old in 1968. I already had 3 years experience with the game as I had older brothers and a 7 foot table at home since 1964. We had a good time on the 9 footers in the room; and the main reason, in my opinion, was that we could actually pocket a few balls on a 9 foot table, enough to want to go back again until it became a regular occurrence, and for me , a lifetime hobby in every facet of the game.
MY own personal feelings are that if we faced pro level conditions right at the start, we definitely would not have enjoyed the time there - very good odds that we would have looked for some other form of indoor recreation. I think that Brunswick had it right- get everyone involved in the game men, women, kids, families - those that control pro level events can figure out the best playing conditions at that level on their own.
Yes, this was my experience, yes these are my own thoughts on why I stayed with the game for 55+ years now, yes I think that rooms with ONLY pro level Diamonds are BAD for the proliferation of the game here in the U.S. and YES - today- I don't care for Diamond tables- but I don't appreciate my own personal experiences- shared here as being referred to as "malarky" or a reason to " don't like them don't play" - two quotes from you. I don't need your judgement on what I experienced or how I react to my own experiences in life - I was just sharing an experience and an opinion with the group here.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
What Mike says makes sense to me.
As I learned pool, pocketing came first. Then the real demon raised its head: bottom and making that damn ball back up -- it took forever. It was years before I tried a cross-side bank. If nothing else, I wanted to look cool at the table and a cross side bank was damn cool. Then I made a three railer and it was all downhill from there.
It was many, many years before I had enough confidence in my banking ability that I began questioning a table's integrity, but once I started, I became a real critic. What's sad is how little most room owners care about their tables and fixing a bad rail seems to be the last thing on their list. Owners allowing their tables to deteriorate below standards is one thing, but a manufacturer introducing new, non-conforming equipment into the mix was another.
Believe it or not, I appreciate Diamond and what they have done. I view them to have been a much needed reaction against bar boxes (my truest nemesis). Brunswick for whatever reason was completely out of it and couldn't even answer the bell. Without Diamonds, what tables would populate our last "real" pool rooms and how bad would they be?
As I learned pool, pocketing came first. Then the real demon raised its head: bottom and making that damn ball back up -- it took forever. It was years before I tried a cross-side bank. If nothing else, I wanted to look cool at the table and a cross side bank was damn cool. Then I made a three railer and it was all downhill from there.
It was many, many years before I had enough confidence in my banking ability that I began questioning a table's integrity, but once I started, I became a real critic. What's sad is how little most room owners care about their tables and fixing a bad rail seems to be the last thing on their list. Owners allowing their tables to deteriorate below standards is one thing, but a manufacturer introducing new, non-conforming equipment into the mix was another.
Believe it or not, I appreciate Diamond and what they have done. I view them to have been a much needed reaction against bar boxes (my truest nemesis). Brunswick for whatever reason was completely out of it and couldn't even answer the bell. Without Diamonds, what tables would populate our last "real" pool rooms and how bad would they be?
That is a surprisingly dim assertation!
#1 on Brunswick 1, 2 or 3s , [ I never played on a 4 or 5 so I don't know if they changed it} from within a diamond of the foot or head of the table, have you ever shot a 2 rail cross corner bank , and had the object ball start climbing the table the wrong direction after rail 2 ? No matter what speed you hit them at? Diamonds accept the shot every time if hit the correct speed. On some Gold Crowns it is an impossible shot for anybody.
#2 Nothing , but If Diamonds banked like GCs why not just get a GC?
#3 Yes I do all the time. No one ever hated Diamonds, as far as banking as I did, until I found out I was the problem. Diamonds cushions 25 years ago were more sensitive to speed. {I don't know now , I haven't played in ten years and haven't paid attention to things like that for much longer. One day I was practicing and complaining about the rails and a really good banker came over and said it ain't the table , it's you. I said what do you mean and he said , you have only played on Brunswicks and they are very forgiving as far as speed you hit the balls, Diamonds play great , but you have to use the correct speed for the shot. I became a much better banker from then on , because whenever I could , I played the ball a foot or less longer than the pocket and they lengthened out perfectly. It's very possible that really good players do something else, but if you aren't one of the 3 best players in town , I suggest you try the speed method and see what happens.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
While banks are very important to me as a mere pool player, it seems to me that in some carom games that bank standardization would be way more critical. (I have no idea because I never had a real opportunity to learn/play.) I mean, I understand they are so particular about conditions their tables are manufactured with dehumidifiers -- must be a very intolerant bunch as I can see from here.
I'd really like to hear from some of the 3 Cushion players on how much table deviation they experience in their day to day play. Also, is there variation among different manufacturers? Between table models? Does the carom governing body have standards for how a table banks? How would they measure such?
I'd really like to hear from some of the 3 Cushion players on how much table deviation they experience in their day to day play. Also, is there variation among different manufacturers? Between table models? Does the carom governing body have standards for how a table banks? How would they measure such?
Last edited:
Carom is not like pool.
Opponents celebrate the others' successes.
The current governing body was formed in 1959.
It does not rely on itself or even the sport for sponsorship.
The tables are pretty much the same when looked at simply but there are big differences which, like you humans...cannot be dictated by legislation or Policy.
That said, pathways have existed long enough and in a fashion sufficiently constant that books have been about them.
And I shot an .888 yesterday.
A small nit. While the UMB may have been formed in 1959, I think that was basically a renaming of the UIFAB which was formed in 1923. I suspect the related changes in constitution/bylaws were to comply with the perceived requirements of the IOC,