"The Big Ban"

[ShootingArts]

exactly right!

The way you are explaining it then the balls should damage each other. The same amount of contact area between the balls and the the tip on the balls. When a cue ball is sent at the one ball at 25mph it should damage it because it is harder than my material.

Mike,

You are exactly right about the balls damaging each other, wrong about about ball to ball hits and tip to ball hits having the same contact area. The balls should damage each other, and do. Every time a ball hits another one with any speed at all the two balls flex and snap back and tiny pieces of each ball break off. That is why old cue balls are the smallest and lightest balls on the table if they matched the numbered balls to begin with.

Now lets consider an equally hard material(the tip) with a smaller contact area and tighter radius: It also has much more effective mass when mounted on a cue and held in someone's hand.

If we had the same force in a smaller contact area the tip would deform the cue ball more than another ball does. The greater the deformation, the greater the damage. Add that we have much greater force transfer from a tip than from another ball and that adds to deformation and damage.

I said earlier that you were shooting yourself in the foot in this thread.

Hu

 

[gulyassy]

Mr. Mike

how do you go about compiling your material specifications. you post numbers that i am not aware of. plus you use a general grouping for the materials. it is true that phenolic and g-10 are thermoset composites. but they are two completly differant animals. the rockwell of g-10 is 110 and the rockwell of ce and L phenolic is 105. if you go to saluc and check their materials page you will see that the phenolic that they use for the aramith balls ranges from 77-90 rockwell. depending on the quality of ball.i did a pic from their sight to show their info.

bill

These numbers were determined by the a person named Mark Weiss at the Polymer Lab. I sent in a red circle cue ball and samples of the break jump materials. All the test results were done several times to determine the hardness on the Shore D scale that goes to 100.

 

[subdude1974]

I am going to say this. Jump and jump break cues are fine in my opinion. It is the tip that matters. Look at any other sport and you will see they have taken steps to keep the most skill in the sport. Sure there are going to be advances in equipment, but it always stays in a certain zone. Anything outside of that zone is illegal. And on another point, to make the ball on a jump takes a good amount of skill I will agree. But just hitting the ball is very easy. Sometimes someone just making a hit screws you. The tip just makes it too easy. Just end the debate, make them all illegal for competition. Phenolic, G10, whatever. If it isnt leather, it is illegal. But until pool is under 1 governing body it will never happen. But that is a totally different discussion that would go on forever.

 

[JAW725]

Jaw 725 - No need for an apology - I am not offended or bitter. However, I did want to point out some of flawed logic in your arguments. I tried to do it in a humorous way as best I could.

The phenolic tip has become commonplace fairly recently (last ten years or less). In my opinion, it is just BAD for the game because someone who has played for 6 months is ENCOURAGED to believe they outplayed a better player by jumping with a novelty cue or tip. My feeling is that I learned the game from better players who put me in situations that made me think. I understand your reasoning for the "easier" solution, but we can improve players, in general, by making them think about a variety of options (kicking vs full cue jump shot) rather than using the "easy answer".

-Philly

Okay Philly I see where you are coming from, but we will have to agree to disagree. I just want to point out that safety play along with kicking are alive and well in today's game, the jump stick is just another variable a player will have to consider while laying down a tough safe. It's just more for a player to think about, which inturn, may make them better for it :smile:

In regards to the whole "easier shot" thing, I'm about percentages and I'm not going to take what possibly could be a "harder shot", with less reward, just because that is what Willie Hoppe would have done. In many safety situations the jump is not the best option and may not even be avaliable - that is the safety you want to lay. djpstacked considers the jump when he lays a safe on me because he knows I'll pull out the jumper and have a good go at it. If he accomplishes a good safe then I'll kick at it because that is what needs to be done, however if it's a week safe that shows to much and the room needed for the pot, then he just may get punished for it.

Taking the high percentage option with what ever means avaliable is not ill logic. Again, I do see where you are coming from and we can just keep going back and forth with this so I have said my peace :smile:

Take care

 

[vasilios]

Mr.Mike

thanks for the reply on the numbers and the scale you tested by.the products under discussion are thermosets not elastomers. maybe you might condsider looking to something else for future testing.

bill

 

[gulyassy]

I give, ban all the phenolic. Oops, ban all plastic because there is one in out industry that uses a plastic not in the phenolic family. On second thought I will not believe that my material damages the balls because since I have made the first ferrule/tip I have used it on my pool table with my balls and cue ball and I admit I do not play much but enough to see if there is any damage on my equipment and I see none after 7 years. All these theories on what caused damage to some cue balls. I want to see a test of a cue ball showing damage after how many hits does it take? 5 or 5 thousand or more. How does the BCA know what caused what damage. What about these new products that are out there, new Samsara leather tips "hard as phenolic" but with control of leather what does this mean, does this cause damage or are we going to wait 7 years to find out. The white diamond tips, are they safe, is the phenolic in the Tiger tip different than my phenolic? There is no proof that anything happened concerning my material. Just some words. Something this big that affects so may people needs proof not theories. This is not about my product alone, there is Fury, McDermott, Jacoby, J&J, Stinger, Predator, and how many other pool companies. There are tens of thousands of cue repair people that put on these ferrule/tips, I personally would like one of these people that have tried to prove that my material damages the balls show me the proof. Show me the proof, Mark Griffin of the BCA League, this question is for you, all these new products, have they been tested? Can they damage the balls? Why have you banned my product without any proof and why do you allow other products that have not been tested? Show me the test results of all the materials used in breaking and jumping. Are all the new materials safe? Do you know any of these answers? No politics, yea right.

 

[gulyassy]

Please read the Previous post

 

[suprnva]

I've got an idea for you Mike. Send me one of your cues and a brand new red circle cue ball. I break between 23-25mph and will be glad to test you theory that your product doesn't damage anything. I'll hit 1,000 breaks with it so we have a good sample. Actually, send a few cue balls and I will have others I know with softer breaks test too. When done I'll be more than happy to return the cue balls. :thumbup:

 

[mikeyfrost]

I own one of his new custom J/B's so it's got all the stops in it, I am yet to see any wear on a cue ball, sometimes when I chalk it up(it does hold chalk BTW) and smash the cue ball I can see where it leaves a little chalk mark...so if the argument is over chalk marks I understand, if it's over cracks or chips in the cue ball I gotta disagree!

 

[gulyassy]

I've got an idea for you Mike. Send me one of your cues and a brand new red circle cue ball. I break between 23-25mph and will be glad to test you theory that your product doesn't damage anything. I'll hit 1,000 breaks with it so we have a good sample. Actually, send a few cue balls and I will have others I know with softer breaks test too. When done I'll be more than happy to return the cue balls. :thumbup:

and your address is?

 

[suprnva]

and your address is?

PM sent.

 

[play8ball]

Keeping in the spirit of the game

Ok, I've read all 870 (exaggeration) pages of this stuff, and the people that seem to support the phenalic being banned because its makes jumping "too easy," and God Forbid anyone come forward with any future innovations.

For those purists who think that Mike's trying to make the game more accessible for "lesser" players, why not ban ALL INNOVATIONS in the game since its advent. Get rid of leather tips, two piece cues, rubber rails, and cue balls. Lets go back to playing with maces and rocks on a flat table. That's as pure as you can get.

Think about all the innovations that have "ruined" other games. What if Tiger Woods had to play with the old persimmons drivers, and old school irons because the Golf world wanted to resist innovation.

What if Michael Jordan had to play in converse All Stars for his entire career because the NBA wanted to resist innovation.

What if Roger Federer had to play with an old steel tennis racket because the ATP wanted to resist innovation.

What if Lance Armstrong had to race the Tour De France on an old steel frame 10 speed because cycling refused innovation.

I could go on and on here. I know there are gonna be the naysayers who like to argue over semantics, but the bottom line is that innovation helps make our sport more popular, and in turn makes pay days for the professionals better.

I am a BCA League operator, and we have not banned the Phenalic on a local level. I'm surprised that its been banned at all, honestly, but, I have to believe that it boils down to politics, and that will ruin a sport in the long run.

 

[Celtic]

Think about all the innovations that have "ruined" other games. What if Tiger Woods had to play with the old persimmons drivers, and old school irons because the Golf world wanted to resist innovation.

http://www.usga.org/equipment/conformance/non_conforming_driver/United-States-Golf-Association/

The USGA has decided to adopt new regulations covering grooves on clubs. Under these revisions, most of the current rules governing grooves remain unchanged with two additional provisions: restrictions on groove cross sectional area and groove edge sharpness on applicable golf clubs.

In February 2007 the USGA issued a Notice to Manufacturers regarding proposed revisions to the Rules of Golf governing grooves on clubs. This followed the publication of extensive research work on this subject by the USGA and The R&A. Since February 2007, additional research has been undertaken and published by the USGA and The R&A. A number of manufacturers and other interested parties have provided their comments about the proposed rule changes to the USGA. These comments have been very helpful and have resulted in significant modifications to the originally proposed rule changes.

The Statement of Principles issued jointly by the USGA and The R&A in May 2002, states that the purpose of the Rules is “to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill and to ensure that skill is the dominant element in determining success throughout the game.” The new groove rules have been developed with regard to the results of our research into spin generation, ongoing analysis of highly skilled play, and these important principles.

The objective of this change is to limit the effectiveness of grooves on shots from the rough to the effect of the traditional V-groove design, without mandating the use of only V-grooves. The new regulations permit club designers to vary groove width, depth, spacing and shape to create clubs that conform to this groove rule.

April 12, 2006

Notice To Manufacturers

Clubhead Moment Of Inertia Test And Limit To Be Implemented

On Aug. 30, 2005 the USGA published a proposal to implement a test and limit for clubhead moment of inertia (MOI). The USGA Equipment Standards Committee received detailed written comments from manufacturers regarding both the proposed limit and the accompanying test procedure. After careful consideration of the comments received from equipment manufacturers, the USGA has approved the implementation of a clubhead moment of inertia test and a limit of 5900 gm·cm2. Additionally, a test tolerance of 100 gm·cm2 will be used. The limit applies to wood-type clubs only. Other current clubhead requirements that may have an effect on MOI remain in effect. This includes such requirements as those relating to volume, head dimensions, and plain in shape.

The procedure for measuring clubhead moment of inertia has also been revised to improve repeatability and accuracy. The changes from the original proposal were based on comments received from manufacturers and additional evaluations conducted by the USGA after the original measurement method was published. The revised measurement method can be found on the USGA Web site at:

http://www.usga.org/equipment/protocols/moir1.pdf

The test and limit become effective May 1, 2006.

No clubheads that have been submitted to the USGA for a conformance ruling exceed the limit.

Some of the written comments received from manufacturers provided the USGA with information that confirmed USGA findings that there is very little protection difference between the original limit proposed and the final limit chosen. The USGA believes that the limit chosen provides an appropriate level of protection against future unknown developments - including advanced materials that may become available in the future. This is consistent with past equipment rulings by the USGA that allowed some, but not unlimited, advances in technology.

The Rules of Golf (“the Rules”) specify the equipment which may be used to play the game. These specifications can be found in Rule 4 and Appendix II for golf clubs and Rule 5 and Appendix III for golf balls. In general, they are ‘descriptive’ and ‘restrictive’ in nature — defining what a golf club should look like and how far a golf ball can travel.

The main objective of Rules 4 and 5 and Appendices II and III is to ensure that technological advances in the design and manufacture of golf equipment are in the best interests of the game of golf. While not wishing to stifle innovation, the purpose of the equipment Rules is to protect the traditions of the game, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than on practice and skill, and to preserve skill differentials throughout the game.

Golf keeps a VERY close eye on the equipment and technological advances and limits that which is allowed. It is a prime example of why the discissions being made are in fact the right ones.

 

[play8ball]

Governing Bodies

http://www.usga.org/equipment/conformance/non_conforming_driver/United-States-Golf-Association/









Golf keeps a VERY close eye on the equipment and technological advances and limits that which is allowed. It is a prime example of why the discissions (decisions) being made are in fact the right ones.

Granted, but when Golf was evolving into the behemoth that it is today, they had to decide whether to allow dimples on the balls. Now, mind you, not everyone had the balls with dimples, but the ones that did surely out drove the naysayers, thereby feigning their actual skills. Finally, everyone adopted the dimpled ball, thereby leveling the playing field. If the "purists" would have had their way, then nobody would be using dimpled balls.

What's gonna happen when the next Tiger Woods starts breaking golf balls with his driver? All the Golf Ball manufacturers will be up in arms saying its because the driver is "too hard", and the next thing you'll hear will be them issuing statements that there's been an epidemic of breaking golf balls because of the drivers. When, in fact, out of the millions of golf balls produced, only about 100 actually broke, which can probably be attributed to flaws in craftsmanship, or material.

The whole concept of outlawing something because one of the BIG BORTHERS in our sport say it damages a few of their balls is laughable. Classic tale of Big Business picking on the little guy.

I think you missed my point. Innovations, while controversial, help drive sports, and any Governing body can either be dogmatic in its resistance, or it can have everyone adapt accordingly. Our sport is obviously dogmatic.

I've seen several players break with a leather tip and shatter a cue ball, so what's the next step? Maybe we should start Governing how far back they can swing their arms. That will keep the break more on a "skillful" level, and when the players start adapting their stances to overcome the weaker break, we can tell them that there will only be one acceptable stance, so as to insure the integrity of the game.

 

[Celtic]

I think you missed my point. Innovations, while controversial, help drive sports, and any Governing body can either be dogmatic in its resistance, or it can have everyone adapt accordingly. Our sport is obviously dogmatic.

No you are clearly taking a look at grey and only understanding black and white. If they were truly dogmatic then you would not be using a jump cue, let alone still being allowed to have a phenolic tip on it too boot.

They are making some decisions that allow for innovation, and they are making decisions that draw some lines when things go too far. Dimpled balls compared to smooth reminds me alot of ivory pool balls, guess how common those are these days with their internal grain and inconsistent play? How about the evolution of cloth and the speed of the tables from the old days to present? Ever watchg footage of old professional matches and see the slowness of the cloth compared to today? How many graphite cues due you think existed back then? How about acrylic joint pins?

Innovations abound in this game that are accepted, but you seem to have the blinders on to that fact because you are so focused on this one single issue, you cannot even see the fact that jump cues are one of the biggest innovations that changed the way this game was played more then any other innovation golf has ever seen.

 

[vasilios]

i am on your side mike,the bca should not have dumped on you using probable cause. they are taking an assumption as a reason.

bill

 

[Fatboy]

Laugh all you want... But...

The ultimate goal of organizations such as the WPA is to get IOC acceptance. In order to get that they will have to follow WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) rules. What that would ultimately come down to from my understanding is that random drug tests would be required for WPA sanctioned events IF they ever get to the point of becoming IOC accepted.

Brian

LOL drug testing in pool, there would be like 4 players left at the tournemnt and they would most likely be false negatives. Pool and druguse just go together, sports and drugs for that matter. life and drugs = death. look at MJ....

 

[nympfisher]

YOU CAN COMPLAIN ALL YOU WANT BUT, just like all orginasations and league's and even team owners and venues in ANY SPORT. the leaders and owners can make any rules they see fit . Weather they make sense or not to you dosent matter unless you are on the board or governing body or that org.
1 the rules will be set to:
2 protect the players
3 make the game interesting and FAIR TO ALL
4 and if the body agrees it will add rules they just want , no matter what
protect the equipment
even to protect the fans, i am sure other reasons also apply.
. so if you dont like the rules , apply to the governing board and get elected so you can change what you and your supporters want.

but what do i know ,this is just my opinion

carl

 

[jlynn73]

If they would quit trying to nickel and dime us to death at state, maybe we could ditch these coin op tables along with... the junk aramith tournament mud balls.