Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cyclops vs vintage centenials vs Aramith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cyclops vs vintage centenials vs Aramith

    I had this idea to put at least a little bit of science behind what people "believe or think" is the reason they are getting these and those results. ChicagoMike and I were playing one pocket during the Henderson and Ghost match, I was getting a fair spot.
    I was beating him pretty bad but had him convinced it had mainly had to do with the Cyclops balls and the cue ball he wasn't used to...Convinced he was! This was more of a friendly shark tactic as we were goofing around playing cheapish.
    After 5 games down:
    He made me go get the older balls, which were probably 20 year old Centennials and won his money back, also appearing to play instantly 2 balls better!

    What I have noticed is the Cyclops balls play more consistently then the house balls. This is do to them being newer, rounder, weighing all the same and having a harder finish. Hence less friction better roll, better energy transfer and possibly less friction. Is it all true, eh, maybe. Would need two brand new sets of balls, a robot arm and a few other tools to really know.
    The old timers at Chriss's do not like the Cyclops balls, they claim the cue ball is "too light" You know, hippy dippy stuff. Well I brought a scale with me one day to investigate.

    for what every reason I can't get the images to attach the way I want.
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a3az8jy4c...5uEJmJHxa?dl=0
    Last edited by johnnytronic; 11-23-2018, 03:37 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by johnnytronic View Post
    I had this idea

    for what every reason I can't get the images to attach the way I want.
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a3az8jy4c...5uEJmJHxa?dl=0




    The images look fine..
    "Born Into This"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by johnnytronic View Post
      I had this idea to put at least a little bit of science behind what people "believe or think" is the reason they are getting these and those results. ChicagoMike and I were playing one pocket during the Henderson and Ghost match, I was getting a fair spot.
      I was beating him pretty bad but had him convinced it had mainly had to do with the Cyclops balls and the cue ball he wasn't used to...Convinced he was! This was more of a friendly shark tactic as we were goofing around playing cheapish.
      After 5 games down:
      He made me go get the older balls, which were probably 20 year old Centennials and won his money back, also appearing to play instantly 2 balls better!

      What I have noticed is the Cyclops balls play more consistently then the house balls. This is do to them being newer, rounder, weighing all the same and having a harder finish. Hence less friction better roll, better energy transfer and possibly less friction. Is it all true, eh, maybe. Would need two brand new sets of balls, a robot arm and a few other tools to really know.
      The old timers at Chriss's do not like the Cyclops balls, they claim the cue ball is "too light" You know, hippy dippy stuff. Well I brought a scale with me one day to investigate.

      for what every reason I can't get the images to attach the way I want.
      https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a3az8jy4c...5uEJmJHxa?dl=0
      The first day of the match with Ghost, I noticed the cue ball was not a red circle, which is what was on the other tables. I suspect it was a Cyclops cue ball and while practicing with it, I noticed it played very similar IMO to a measles cue ball, which is what I play with all the time at Hard Times.

      I think that cue ball, along with quite a few brutal rolls for Ghost, and the fact I played well, had something to do with me jumping out to a big lead on the first day. We used the red circle on day 2 and Ghost outplayed me 3/1. On day three we flipped for it, Ghost won and we used the red circle again. We both won three games on day three so the play was close to even, with a few more bad rolls for Ghost, but the lead on the first day was too much to overcome.

      I was happy to get away with a win after being outplayed two of three days.
      JOHN HENDERSON
      Al Romero Cue
      Magic Chalk

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jrhendy View Post
        The first day of the match with Ghost, I noticed the cue ball was not a red circle, which is what was on the other tables. I suspect it was a Cyclops cue ball and while practicing with it, I noticed it played very similar IMO to a measles cue ball, which is what I play with all the time at Hard Times.
        ...
        Mike Surber always said that he could "work" the measles CB more than he could the red circle one. It's my understanding that it's not the weight of the ball (within certain boundaries) that determines its playing characteristics, as much as it is the amount of phenolic resin in the surface layer of the ball. The more phenolic resin, the more sensitive the ball is. If that's true, one could have a red circle and a measles or a Cyclops CB that all weigh exactly the same, but would play differently. Presumably that comparison would extend to the object balls as well.

        ~Doc

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by johnnytronic View Post
          I had this idea to put at least a little bit of science behind what people "believe or think" is the reason they are getting these and those results. ChicagoMike and I were playing one pocket during the Henderson and Ghost match, I was getting a fair spot.
          I was beating him pretty bad but had him convinced it had mainly had to do with the Cyclops balls and the cue ball he wasn't used to...Convinced he was! This was more of a friendly shark tactic as we were goofing around playing cheapish.
          After 5 games down:
          He made me go get the older balls, which were probably 20 year old Centennials and won his money back, also appearing to play instantly 2 balls better!

          What I have noticed is the Cyclops balls play more consistently then the house balls. This is do to them being newer, rounder, weighing all the same and having a harder finish. Hence less friction better roll, better energy transfer and possibly less friction. Is it all true, eh, maybe. Would need two brand new sets of balls, a robot arm and a few other tools to really know.
          The old timers at Chriss's do not like the Cyclops balls, they claim the cue ball is "too light" You know, hippy dippy stuff. Well I brought a scale with me one day to investigate.

          for what every reason I can't get the images to attach the way I want.
          https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a3az8jy4c...5uEJmJHxa?dl=0
          i have two sets....(1) aramiths [switch back and forth between red circle and measle ball] and (2) cyclops.

          i actually really like the cyclops balls. cue ball stays freakishly clean. think it plays a little "lighter" than measle and red circle (in that order) with the aramiths.

          Comment


          • #6
            cyclops stays cleaner and the rest is in your head. after a couple shots if your mind hasnt adjusted to them you need help.

            Comment


            • #7
              I have the super aramith and just got the new cyclops with the Asian spelling for the balls. I have only played with the cyclops so far. Was it I’m getting my stroke back or the balls? New shaft, new balls, new Kentucky? I don’t know. I’ll try the Aramith Saturday or Sunday. Johnnie Tronic has action if I come back and Barry isn’t there.
              Coyotes, Eagles, and Deer, oh my!

              Comment


              • #8
                I have all the balls and cueballs.

                The Measles ball I have seems to have a duller, rougher surface.
                It seems to just Die when it runs into other balls and sticks to them often.

                The Aramiths are the worst to play with. Too much CIT and to many skids.

                The Red circle cueball is fine for 9/10 ball. Easy to draw. Doesn't follow as well as the Cyclop with the big red dot.

                I have two Cyclop sets. I prefer the traditional color set. With the pastel set I sometimes overlook the 7 ball. With more use I would get used to them.

                The Clyclop balls are definitely better to play with. Better surface and better action.

                The real problem is the Simmonis cloth. It is a Billiard cloth and limits what you can do on the pool table. Constant skids even with clean balls. Much more CIT than on nappy cloths. It's popular because players with no stroke can still run out on it.

                Real Force Follow simply doesn't exist on this cloth. No traction. Try getting the cueball to go thru a rack in Straight Pool. The cue balls just die.

                Bill S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  You know who I notcied does not get sharked by pool balls? Filipinos. What a coincidence, the players who tend not to overthink anything and just get in there and play all day under the gun aren't affected no matter what ball you lay in front of them. Hmmm.

                  Frequenting usa pool rooms all my life, I have heard stories ranging from obsessed cueballs causing losses to players insisting they simply cannot play with certain cueballs.
                  Last edited by El Chapo; 11-24-2018, 09:43 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
                    Mike Surber always said that he could "work" the measles CB more than he could the red circle one. It's my understanding that it's not the weight of the ball (within certain boundaries) that determines its playing characteristics, as much as it is the amount of phenolic resin in the surface layer of the ball. The more phenolic resin, the more sensitive the ball is. If that's true, one could have a red circle and a measles or a Cyclops CB that all weigh exactly the same, but would play differently. Presumably that comparison would extend to the object balls as well.

                    ~Doc
                    How much they tend to cling or gear eachother. I would agree. That is a much more important characteristic than weight. The best example is people thinking a cb is light, but it may just have less of a tendency to grab the ball it collides with and maintain more backspin. But again, not thinking about any of this and just getting a feel for the table is my best advice, so just forget all that

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You know when you hit in to an object ball and the cue ball initial reaction is to first bounce back. For instance on a modest cut into the side pocket with the intent to drive the cue ball into the head rail and back, but the cue ball does not initially follow the tangent line but first has the bounce back effect. Or you are cutting a ball and the tangent line says you will clear a near by ball but the cb reaction ends up running right into that ball. This phenomena I do not remember occurring with the balls being used during the era I played, late 60's-early 70's.
                      I was watching a fairly current on line video of a match which was being played with Aramith balls, whereas an older very knowledgable commentator keep referring to this phenomena, he was not a fan to say the least, often offering up his dislike towards the cue ball reaction.
                      I was playing at Medford, or. @ the Rack-Em and they use Brunswick Balls, fairly older ones I assume, and what a beautiful sound they do make. I said to myself; "there's the sound I have been missing", there's nothing like it, it just feels and sounds right!

                      I believe one important thing is that the cue ball and the object balls weigh the same. I have a problem with bar tables for the cue ball is heavier than the object balls, thus on follow shots it follows more on a tighter angle, and on draw shots it draws less an on a wider angle, thus you can not rely on the true tangent line. Whitey

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
                        Mike Surber always said that he could "work" the measles CB more than he could the red circle one. It's my understanding that it's not the weight of the ball (within certain boundaries) that determines its playing characteristics, as much as it is the amount of phenolic resin in the surface layer of the ball. The more phenolic resin, the more sensitive the ball is. If that's true, one could have a red circle and a measles or a Cyclops CB that all weigh exactly the same, but would play differently. Presumably that comparison would extend to the object balls as well.

                        ~Doc
                        For whatever reason when I am playing with the measel cue ball it always look larger than the object balls. I don’t know if it’s my imagination or just an optical illusion.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by bstroud View Post
                          The real problem is the Simmonis cloth. It is a Billiard cloth and limits what you can do on the pool table. Constant skids even with clean balls. Much more CIT than on nappy cloths.
                          I think the usual thinking for this idea is that throw happens when the OB is "dragged" a little way in the CB's direction before it's "released" to travel in its own direction (i.e., it moves in one direction and then another) - and slower cloth reduces the distance it's "dragged" before being "released"?

                          I believe with or without throw the OB moves in a straight line the instant it begins moving, without changing direction. That would mean the cloth doesn't affect the OB's direction, only its speed in that one direction.

                          pj
                          chgo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BrookelandBilly View Post
                            For whatever reason when I am playing with the measel cue ball it always look larger than the object balls. I don’t know if it’s my imagination or just an optical illusion.
                            Me too (and I assume others as well). My theory is that (1) the spots make it look bigger and/or (2) it probably is a little bigger than the "stock" CB because it usually is newer.

                            pj
                            chgo

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Patrick,

                              Have you spent much time playing on Brunsco cloth with Centennial balls?

                              If you had you would see the difference.

                              Just had another thought.

                              What if the nappy cloth actually suspended the balls a little higher than the Simmonis. Would that have any effect on your scientific beliefs?

                              Bill S.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X