Seriously..that non-rack rack?

[Celtic]

I am a big fan of the magic rack. It is the only rack that gives a truly 100% frozen rack when used properly and that gets rid of rack mechanics and racking advantages.

As Mark said above, you need to use it properly and nudge the balls sometimes to get the rack perfectly frozen, but when they are used properly every ball in the rack is welded to the next as should be.

The magic rack is just one step in getting rid of the inconsistency that plagues pool. Things like rack mechanics had to go, and we do not need a rack that has buttons and plungers and looks like an overcomplicated contraption to rack the balls like the $100+ Sardo.

 

[sfleinen]

This makes sense, it's a triangle but the cut of the holes orients properly only in one direction, if you flip the MR randomly it won't work right on the 2 other corners on the spot.

Never used the 8-ball MR myself but this can explain things very well.

I think the best use of the MR is in 10-ball. 9-ball is good because the 9 stays put, but it's too easy to make 1-2-3 balls off a well done rack and with soft break and pattern racks, you will have C players running out.

Guys:

No offense, but the above explanation is flawed. A rack of balls is an equilateral triangle (all three sides being equal).

In order to have something on the table that causes the balls to "lean" inwards towards each other, the cutouts on the MR template would have to be designed such that all of the outside/perimeter balls are leaning inwards into the rack.

Even *if* you rotate the template 120-degrees so that a different corner becomes the apex of the rack, all you're doing is reorienting the "leaning" -- the balls are still leaning against each other, just rotated 120-degrees.

And even if you flip the template over (such that it is upside down), the holes are *still* oriented in a fashion to cause the balls to lean inwards.

Just rotating the template 120 degrees so that a different corner is now the apex, doesn't suddenly mean that now one of the other corners "lost its lean." That's like saying if I rotate this equilateral triangle 120 degrees, it's no longer an equilateral triangle.

-Sean

 

[kaznj]

Just switched to wooden rack. Problem with magic rack.

 

[Celtic]

Even *if* you rotate the template 60-degrees so that a different corner becomes the apex of the rack

120 degrees.

 

[sfleinen]

120 degrees.

You're right. (I was thinking about the angles inside the rack, which are 60 degrees.)

The point I was trying to share is the same, though.
-Sean

 

[ironman]

I have found that the magic ball rack works good for 8-ball.

BUT you have to make sure to 'gently' push the balls into each other.

If there was a problem, it was probably from the person racking the balls and their inexperience. Used properly, the balls will be frozen and break well.

Mark Griffin

I'm one of those who believes as long as the human hands are invoved, perfection does not exist.
I became a true believer in the magic rack at last years Texas Open. All the crazy debates and reracks were gone. It is a 3 day event and we fianished nearly 6 hours ahead of previous years. It is a winner beak tournament and the *****ing was minimal even by the normal *****ers.
Perfect?? I highly doubt that, but a good product!

 

[smoooothstroke]

The magic rack is great especially for 9 ball, especially on tables that do not rack well or easily.

I did notice that while playing 211 (10B rack your own against the ghost) that the MR takes a bit of speed off the balls.First I figured out that all the balls need to be frozen to get a good rack even with the MR.Then it was pointed out to me that not all the balls were touching even when it appeared they were(you have to check ever part of the rack).So even after learning to rack them perfectly with the MR I noticed the balls were not jumping from the rack area with the speed they do with a reasonably tight rack with no magic rack.

My conclusion is that for 10B and 8B people with low speed/low power breaks might not get good results with the magic rack.

 

[Island Drive]

I should've asked..what's wrong with the Sardo or any other quality rack. In other words, anything other than that . It's crazy stopping whatever momentum a player might have been building in order to laboriously construct a tight rack, when, imho, 'rack your own' stops any squabbles. The spectators, I included, shouldn't be subjected to it either.

Not sure on the history of its failure, but the active pros during that time frame had allot to say about it. I'm sure Mark Griffin or Jay Helfert could explain their reasoning.

 

[junkbond]

Guys:

No offense, but the above explanation is flawed. A rack of balls is an equilateral triangle (all three sides being equal).

In order to have something on the table that causes the balls to "lean" inwards towards each other, the cutouts on the MR template would have to be designed such that all of the outside/perimeter balls are leaning inwards into the rack.

Even *if* you rotate the template 120-degrees so that a different corner becomes the apex of the rack, all you're doing is reorienting the "leaning" -- the balls are still leaning against each other, just rotated 120-degrees.

And even if you flip the template over (such that it is upside down), the holes are *still* oriented in a fashion to cause the balls to lean inwards.

Just rotating the template 120 degrees so that a different corner is now the apex, doesn't suddenly mean that now one of the other corners "lost its lean." That's like saying if I rotate this equilateral triangle 120 degrees, it's no longer an equilateral triangle.

-Sean

Sean is absolutely right about the geometry. There is a "head ball" at each of the three 120-degree positions. However, after using these racks every day for the past two years, I stand by my post. It never made any sense to me that there would be one preferred position (for the reasons that Sean presented) but, in practice, there is. I just assume it is caused by the small difference caused by the spot on the head position setting the head ball just slightly higher.

 

[Celtic]

Sean is absolutely right about the geometry. There is a "head ball" at each of the three 120-degree positions. However, after using these racks every day for the past two years, I stand by my post. It never made any sense to me that there would be one preferred position (for the reasons that Sean presented) but, in practice, there is. I just assume it is caused by the small difference caused by the spot on the head position setting the head ball just slightly higher.

It might have to do with the fact that the diamonds which the outer balls sit in are orientated differently.

Notice the lower center diamond has a long axis parallel to the lower straight edge. The points of the diamond aim at the two bottom corners of the magic rack.

Now notice that the two diamonds in the center of the "sides" of the rack are actually angled differently. Those two diamonds point straight up and down thus the point of the diamond points outside of the rack at the top and inside of the rack towards the bottom.

Thus, if you spin the rack you actually get a different orientation of the diamonds. It is still a triangle, but the way the diamonds on that triangle are positioned actually do change. As to whether that changes a "perfectly frozen rack" though... it should not.

 

[The Renfro]

I am a big fan of the magic rack. It is the only rack that gives a truly 100% frozen rack when used properly and that gets rid of rack mechanics and racking advantages.

As Mark said above, you need to use it properly and nudge the balls sometimes to get the rack perfectly frozen, but when they are used properly every ball in the rack is welded to the next as should be.

The magic rack is just one step in getting rid of the inconsistency that plagues pool. Things like rack mechanics had to go, and we do not need a rack that has buttons and plungers and looks like an overcomplicated contraption to rack the balls like the $100+ Sardo.

Not anymore... After having a long talk with Ralf Souquet 2 years ago about the different systems and their inherent problems I started working on new designs.... In the next month I will have moved them out of R&D and into full production.... They will be sold under the name in my Avatar and there will be 3 templates per system....

I intend to start a thread to give some sets away to get feedback from the AZ Community as soon as the first batch is ready.......

 

[TheNewSharkster]

I love the magic rack. I can make the wing ball in 9ball almost every break! 10ball not so much

I do not like it in 8ball because it seems like balls land on it a lot more.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I'm not trying to brag or anything [yes I am], but it's actually easier for me to get 15 balls frozen compared to 9 or 10 using a regular rack.

 

[Island Drive]

I'm not trying to brag or anything [yes I am], but it's actually easier for me to get 15 balls frozen compared to 9 or 10 using a regular rack.

It's near impossible to get all balls tight, as the tolerances when made have peramiters, and as balls wear and develop character from hitting the floor etc, this too causes uneveness. If the ball set is not a premium set the tolerances when made can be up to (I think) 7 thousanths different from one another.

 

[Majic]

I have found that the magic ball rack works good for 8-ball.

BUT you have to make sure to 'gently' push the balls into each other.

If there was a problem, it was probably from the person racking the balls and their inexperience. Used properly, the balls will be frozen and break well.

Mark Griffin

I have to orient my MBR in only one way. If using the other two points, the balls will not come together tightly. It must be a manufacturing problem.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It's near impossible to get all balls tight, as the tolerances when made have peramiters, and as balls wear and develop character from hitting the floor etc, this too causes uneveness. If the ball set is not a premium set the tolerances when made can be up to (I think) 7 thousanths different from one another.

Interesting I guess the rack just looks tighter when you using all the balls.

 

[sfleinen]

Sean is absolutely right about the geometry. There is a "head ball" at each of the three 120-degree positions. However, after using these racks every day for the past two years, I stand by my post. It never made any sense to me that there would be one preferred position (for the reasons that Sean presented) but, in practice, there is. I just assume it is caused by the small difference caused by the spot on the head position setting the head ball just slightly higher.

It might have to do with the fact that the diamonds which the outer balls sit in are orientated differently.

Notice the lower center diamond has a long axis parallel to the lower straight edge. The points of the diamond aim at the two bottom corners of the magic rack.

Now notice that the two diamonds in the center of the "sides" of the rack are actually angled differently. Those two diamonds point straight up and down thus the point of the diamond points outside of the rack at the top and inside of the rack towards the bottom.

Thus, if you spin the rack you actually get a different orientation of the diamonds. It is still a triangle, but the way the diamonds on that triangle are positioned actually do change. As to whether that changes a "perfectly frozen rack" though... it should not.

Folks:

Thanks for the pics and pointing out those middle-ball cutouts on each of the MR's sides. Interesting (and odd) that only the cutout for the middle ball in each row would be different.

Notice that the three balls in each of the corners are exactly the same, though. That would mean rotating the rack 120 degrees would result in "a same apex of three balls" that would be frozen. That "different middle-row ball" leaning orientation would be a moot issue, because that ball is not on the head spot. It wouldn't explain why rotating the rack 120 degrees results in a head ball "that walks away."

I have a feeling it's a *spot* issue, not a Magic Rack issue.

I'll bet there's a deep gouge or divot in that spot that's causing a ball to "walk away," not the MR. Perhaps there's a divot there from breaking racks with a traditional rack, a divot of which doesn't match up with MR placement.

Thoughts?
-Sean

 

[Island Drive]

Folks:

Thanks for the pics and pointing out those middle-ball cutouts on each of the MR's sides. Interesting (and odd) that only the cutout for the middle ball in each row would be different.

Notice that the three balls in each of the corners are exactly the same, though. That would mean rotating the rack 120 degrees would result in "a same apex of three balls" that would be frozen. That "different middle-row ball" leaning orientation would be a moot issue, because that ball is not on the head spot. It wouldn't explain why rotating the rack 120 degrees results in a head ball "that walks away."

I have a feeling it's a *spot* issue, not a Magic Rack issue.

I'll bet there's a deep gouge or divot in that spot that's causing a ball to "walk away," not the MR. Perhaps there's a divot there from breaking racks with a traditional rack, a divot of which doesn't match up with MR placement.


Thoughts?
-Sean

Especially tables where the spots aren't replaced on a regular basis, or if thick rag cloth it will dig an indent, the headball w/o a spot then pinch/divots the table. In this common situation you always rack the head ball a little high so that it falls back towards the next two balls and snugs up.
What also happens when the head ball sits low and someone who knows how to crack em hard, whitey is striking the one ball, Above center, that helps to Launch it Up/Left/Right or who knows what, can be dangerous or break table lights if low.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Somebody has got to think through this thing. The utopic frozen rack of balls is just a load of problems that pool does not need. Every new gadget has new and bigger problems. Think further. Get rid of the logic for a frozen rack of balls.

Come-on! No table or balls are perfect. Balls are different sizes. Cloth has dents and divits. Table spots have dents and ridges. Fix the rules. No more gadgets to cloud the issue, please.

I am going to ask this question again. I have never gotten a good answer. I am talking Eight-Ball. Here is a called shot game. At the top level, the most critical shot of the game is the break. Why are we starting every rack of the skilled game of Eight-Ball with a slop shot? Fix the rules. Shoot what you rack and break. No more stressing over perfect racks. Problem solved. Games are better.

 

[CreeDo]

I am going to ask this question again. I have never gotten a good answer. I am talking Eight-Ball. Here is a called shot game. At the top level, the most critical shot of the game is the break. Why are we starting every rack of the skilled game of Eight-Ball with a slop shot? Fix the rules. Shoot what you rack and break. No more stressing over perfect racks. Problem solved. Games are better.

Paul, I know you have your pet idea for pool... and I'm not saying it's bad. But you can't get people to fall in love with it by these exaggerations >_<

"Every new gadget has new and bigger problems."

Not so. The MBR presents fewer than the Sardo, which is a clear improvement over wooden and plastic triangles. The results of breaks are much more consistent.

"No table or balls are perfect."

Why do we need to settle for randomness on the playing surface? It's not that difficult or expensive to keep a table clean and level, or replace ball sets every so often.

The beauty of the magic rack is, it doesn't require perfection. It just needs a certain minimum standard. The balls can be average pool hall balls. The table can be a bit worn and even have divots in the racking area. It's only when some are extremely undersized that it becomes impossible to freeze everything with the MBR.

Why are we starting every rack of the skilled game of Eight-Ball with a slop shot?

To the amateur, the break is a slop shot. But you've been around the block long enough to know it's not a slop shot for the pros. Just spend 20 minutes with a magic rack breaking 9 ball and it becomes clear... this is a dead combo, where I'm just trying to control the one and the cue ball. That's not slop.

10 ball is more difficult, but the top pros make a ball on the break approximately 70 times out of 100. For about 68 of those, it's a 2nd-row ball in the side. Eight ball is, I believe, the same shot.

That's a beautiful way to start the game ... a specific shot that's difficult enough that pros only makes it 2/3rds of the time... but it's not out of reach for regular guys.

If you don't start the pros out with a 70% tester, and you just let them break and carry on shooting, they will simply alternate runouts until one guy gets an unlucky cluster. Then, to game the system, they will figure out a soft break that prevents that.