So basically you are saying that the top 30 snooker players are wrong when choosing taom chalk.. let me tell you that i believe more on professional players opinions who plays the game several hours per day, than i do to you theoretical "teacher". Also the proof is in the pudding, just look at the cloth after hour of play with the taom. Thanks for your videos, but theory/theorist and excel will never beat the practical player..
All I am saying is what the test results show. I am not in the snooker world and I do I know what the top 30 players are saying or why they are saying it (if they are). I do know that sometimes what pros say (pool or snooker) isn't always correct. For example, for many years many snooker world people claimed kick was due to static electricity. This is incorrect, per the info here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#cling And many pool pros in the past claimed throw and spin transfer did not exist. That is also blatantly wrong, per the info here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html I do know that Taom is not very visible on the CB and doesn't show up on the cloth as much because of its color and crumbly/powdery consistency, but it is still there. I also know that cling/skid/kick does not happen often, and sometimes people mistakenly blame a missed shot on cling/skid/kick when the miss was caused by not compensating one's aim for a normal and expected amount of throw.
Taom's best abilities are about 7-10 normal shots wihtout reapply and less chalk stains in table and balls. Ofcourse the chalk sticks to balls in in slower phase than others. But it's mostly cleanier chalk ans reduces kicks from skrew shots.
Basically for the lighter snooker balls Taom may be fine... For pool you need additional abrasives. Melling tossed his Taom in his case at the US International after the 3rd miscue on a simple shot... Those miscues may very well have cost him a shot at winning the event.....
Wow! Amazing video. This is clearly hard work, and good research. Really show how much work you put in to the videos and saves us alot of time of figuring out all the variables of the game!
Good job Dave, very well researched and thoroughly experimented and explained. Billiards is already about a century old sport yet we can't use science to rectify the kick til today. The problem is still there and people still complain but no one is doing anything about it.
I do something about it when I play. I wipe off the CB before each game and every time I have ball in hand, and I refuse to use the fancy “cosmetic-style chalks that persist on the CB longer. Pros also seem to ask referees to clean the CB during a game more than they did in the past (when they see chalk marks on the ball).
@@DrDaveBilliards It's also a lot to do with the balls Dave, they're all made by Aramith and made from a softer material now, can't be so highly polished so there's more natural friction and they will kick/skid even without a chalk mark on the contact point. In snooker it's worse as there's a nap on the cloth increasing the resistance between the balls, my mate and I play snooker using a 30 year old set of super crystalate balls rather than the Aramith phenolic resin balls that are available now. In league matches we have to use the Aramith's and get about five bad contacts a frame, when we pratcise together using the old SC's we get about five bad contacts in a seven frame session. He uses Triangle chalk and I use Master, both made by Tweetens.
@@vmax4steve524 The cloth has no effect on throw or cling/skid/kick. See the 2nd to last Q&A near the bottom of the page here: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/throw/answers/
I don't fully trust something someone on RUclips says until I try it myself, because someone can skew the results the way they want. Another problem is, you aren't a machine, and can't expect to hit the ball the same every time, so your cling results are less than perfect. I have only tried two other chalks, magic chalk, and Taom, I'll never go back to master. I'm using Taom, and it has really helped my game. Not one miscue since I started using it.
Try the comparative tests yourself to see if you find any actual differences in miscue limit among various chalks. I have tested many chalks and have found no measurable difference in the miscue limit. See the videos and info here: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/ Although, I do like that Taom stays on the CB less than Master.
Great insights. I was also wondering if the humidity level would affect the performance of chalk. I figured the texture of chalk becomes different when it is in raining season, or when it's been used for a while comparing to new chalks.
It can affect how it goes on the tip and how it sticks to the CB, but I don’t think the playing performance would be any different (but I have not carefully tested this).
Little late to the party but here's my recent chalk story. Someone gave me this link a few days ago when discussing chalk. Always used Master chalk because that is what is in pool halls. I scoffed at the new golly gee whiz chalks that have come onto the scene. Recently a pro pool vlogger was touting Taom chalk. I thought okay, I'll get a cube and give it a go. Picked up a cube of the Taom PRYO chalk off Amazon. Wasn't expecting much or much different than Master chalk. In your test you mention the Taom you tested was more "powdery" than the Master chalk. This certainly isn't the case with the PYRO chalk. The PYRO chalk has an almost a paste like consistency that seems like you're painting your tip as you apply the chalk. Definitely different than Master chalk. The other day I was throwing 15 balls on the table and pocket the entire rack without re-chalking. Sort of an unscientific test. No miscue issues. I wouldn't do this in a competition but I certainly wouldn't bother chalking up after each shot. Lemme tell you, tough habit to break. Often you grab the chalk again after just chalking as sort of a mental crutch as you ponder a more tricky shot. As for the 'playability' of the Taom PRYO chalk I noticed an immediate difference in feel. Meaning I could apply the same spin on the cue ball with less effort. Particularly on draw shots. Players mileage may vary but this is my experience. I'm sold on the chalk.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. FYI, I look at Taom Pyro and many other chalks in the other videos and summaries here: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
DrDaveBilliards of all the cues and chalk that you have tested, what kind of cues and chalk do you personally use and like best??? Thanks for all that you do!
I like LD shafts for the reasons here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages I prefer a hard tip for the reasons here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness I prefer Master chalk because that's what I have always used, and it works; but, honestly, I don't think the choice of chalk brand is really that important. My current playing cue is a 12.4 Predator Revo. Honestly, I don't think the choice of cue is really that important either as long as you spend time with the cue to get used to it (i.e., don't keep changing equipment). The player is much more important than the cue, tip type, or chalk brand.
I'll throw my two cents: When Taom first came to market or was about to. My friend who knows some of the people behind the product got a preview sample of their first batch of Taom chalk. We tested it in the following manner: We would play 1 on 1 for several hours. I was wearing a black t-shirt and we purposefully would not clean or wipe the cueball for no reason. After several hours I tried wiping the cueball against my shirt and there was absolutely no residue of the chalk whatsoever. The idea behind the chalk is this to begin with: It does not stick the cueball when shooting so there's less kicks because of that. Afterwards all Taom brand chalks I've tried have behaved the same way. I do get kicks still sometimes but they are in the micro-kick variety that don't have this audible crunching sound and/or a clear hop of the CB. This testing methodology is fine in itself. That is, if there's chalk on the CB there's gonna be kicks. But then saying that Taom doesn't result in less kicks or no kicks is absolutely a wrong conclusion. I can tell you from experience that Taom is for me at least the best chalk there is. I buy my own and I'm not affiliated with the people who produce it. Don't kill me thanks :)
I've read your comment about chalk below a comment also watched lots of chalk comparison videos and thank you again for this video. But i've noticed something different about chalks. In my experience differences comes out if cue tip is so flat and if humidty levels also high or balls dirty. On nicely shaped and thick cue tip all chalks works well but here in Africa people using same cue tips for months without maintanence when i apply their cheap chalk also mine master, navigator and blue diamond chalk, all of them giving different results. So i think real differences comes out in this conditions and i think some brands using some kind of oil which helps stick on flat cue tips. Also when use master chalk on 10mm snooker cue to play pool, miscue levels changing and gives bad results than navigator. I think master chalk leaves thick coat on cue tip and effects like car tyre on sand then slips.
I did too. Specifically don't spend too much money for chalk! I actually like Silver Cup Tournament green because it matches the felt where I play and looks pretty on the tip 🙂
Romeo Zamora I honestly don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I use Master chalk, and the only time I miscue is when I execute a bad stroke. One thing I don’t like is a chalk that sticks to the CB. For more info, see the BD articles beneath the videos here: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Finally a reason not to use Kamui, aside from the exorbitant price! Thanks Dr. Dave, great video. Keep up the awesome work. p.s. Is that a Mosconi Cup jersey you are wearing? I think you would make a great coach for the US team...
I definitely don't like how easily Kamui and similar chalks stick to and stay on the CB. The jersey is from a past BEF Junior National Tournament. Thank you for suggesting I would be a good coach for the US Mosconi Cup Team; but I probably don't have the patience and calmness required, and I'm probably not the best personality match for the players.
I've searched the subject on 'kick' many times, it is said nobody knows what caused it and it could be many factors, all the way down to quantum mechanics, so I gave up believing chalk is the cause. I think way more players in pool blame the kick than people in snooker, to which I am amazed since straight-cut pockets are so much more forgiving in pool, even if pool pockets are round cut, it is still much easier than potting in snooker.
@DrDave Wow and thanks for your video's! Video/test idea: The difference in tip hardness when it comes to jumping or masse shots. Thanks again and great work!!!
Thank you for the positive feedback and for the suggestion. Basically, a hard tip (e.g., phenolic) is better for jumping and a softer tip is better for masse. For more info, see: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/jump/ billiards.colostate.edu/faq/masse/cue/
Nice idea to emulate a skid and show it in slo-mo. Note that for some reason yet to be unfolded in snooker when a kick occurs it is an object ball jumping rather than a cue ball, at least from my own viewing experience. As for TAOM and snooker pros, you can easily track their reviews saying basically "too many miscues" and "not impressed". That was until they received a replacement (free I suppose) from TAOM coming up with 2.0 version. Which snooker players finally found much better. I tried older version and although didn't find anything special which could justify the price tag in my eyes, I confirm that it doesn't leave chalk marks on the cue ball. Which hopefully makes snooker players life better. Next chapter I guess is "chalk wars" in attempt to ban those "skidding" types of that. Because if you use one of "non-residue" chalks and your opponent does not, you are still in danger of getting a skid from the mark he left on the cue ball.
Both the CB and OB can jump when there is cling/skid/kick with topspin or bottom spin. I tested both versions of Taom in my previous video and saw no performance differences with those tests. Check it out: ruclips.net/video/gcWIM6svdcE/видео.html I'm with you about the use of "sticky" chalks. It is not only bad for the users, it is also bad for their opponents.
If you think about this phenomenon deeply, you realise that the area of contact between cue and object ball is so small that it is probably the size of only few grains of chalk. That explains the inconsistency of results. On the fifth shot, even if only a few grains of chalk remain in the right place you would still get the 90% throw effect. The fact that it generally diminishes over time means that the effect must be dependent on grain density in the contact area. And it could also be dependent on surface condition of the balls (scratches, etc.) What about the shape of the grains of chalk? E.g. would spherical grains introduce more or less throw?
Good questions. Although, when there is a chalk mark at the contact point between the balls, the amount of throw (cling/skid/kick) is very consistent, and I think more than a "few grains of chalk" come into play. The grain size is extremely small ... much smaller than the size of the contact patch between the balls. The inconsistency during the test is due to the variability in how the chalk particles leave the ball surface over consecutive shots.
I don't mind being corrected and the only thing I can rely personally from experience is that if you hit a ball soft enough anything is possible and also IMHO , all felt is not created equal and the worst part about simonis lack of felt for me anyways seems to have even more cling just not enough nap for my long old pool stroke and follow through . I was a great pool player until these faster felts came along and then I had to slow my stroke down to 20 percent of its normal speed or rhythm now I am constantly analyzing my stroke during a shot as apposed to the contact point and angles in and out ............ in short what used to be natural has become unnatural , I do not think it is just one thing in general but rather the materials used even rails are different on there return . if I were to set up 10 kickback shots that were a given in the past the degree of difficulty has increased drastically . I realize its a different topic than cling but since cling is an anomaly I think it would only be fair to address the entire industry and its lack of consistency ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I also have this problem on simonis in which I was a seriously good combination maker by my own theory and technique but now I can have 2 balls and literally watch them squirt a full diamond away from the pocket and I think its the equipment not me by any stretch .
Why most pool simulation games like Pure Pool doesn't simulate cling/skid/kick? I know it is possible to apply physical properties like friction differently for different locations for the sphere's surface in a physics simulation but idk how computationally expensive it is to simulate cling/skid/kick accurately
Many "real-world" effects are missing in simulators. Even if they attempt to model the effects, the result will never be perfect. The real world is complicated.
There's a lot of debate over the Taom chalk due to it taking over the snooker world the way it has.. would it be fair to assume that because snooker is different to pool, kicks may happen under slightly different conditions? I'm not entirely sure how to word it, but the tables and balls are different, snooker has heated tables... Taom may be kickless in snooker but not necessarily in pool? I'm not saying kicks happen for different reasons, that would be a bit near-sighted, they're both cue sports after all. This might not be related because snooker is a totally different thing but there's clearly enough debate over the chalk that it needs to be said, snooker isn't pool. Aside from that, very interesting results. With the follow through shot you mention at 2:40 , couldn't you just put more pace on the shot? Or would all the top spin still be killed on contact? Looking at the cue ball after contact it seems to go off its natural path so it might not even matter if you could go up table, just curious.
The physics of cling/skid/kick is no different between snooker and pool, and the ball surfaces properties are identical as far as I know (or too similar to have any significant physics effect differences). If you use more speed on the follow shot, you will get more topspin and more follow, but much of will still be lost (and the CB will hop more). However, you won't know to use more speed, unless you know cling/skid/kick will occur; and if it doesn't occur (because the distance isn't exactly right, or if you apply some unintentional side), the CB will follow far too much.
What is majorly different is the weight of the balls... Taom works well for snooker... As far as kicks Strachan thought the issue was static and started treating their cloth with an anti static agent.. Just happened to coincide with the Taom claims.. We had one kick in the International 9ball on the TV table.. It was using guess what???
Could you do a "blind" test with the chalk, and include several other people to duplicate the same shots? I'm guessing the outcome would be statistically insignificant. Thanks for the theory.
That's a good idea, but I've already done enough careful testing to already know there is no real or meaningful performance differences among all of the chalk brands, if you chalk before each shot. See all of the videos, articles, and summarized results here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/chalk.html#comparison
I am pretty sure it does because I rolled back the CB so the chalk mark would be at the right place. Also, when the chalk mark does not hit the CB, the CB does not hop and it gets good follow action. When the chalk mark does hit, the result is very different. Try it at a table. Why do you think the chalk mark on the CB does not hit the OB?
DrDaveBilliards ahh you marked the top dot which strikes the object ball. As I was watching, I forgot that part and was looking for the dot where the cue strikes the cue ball to hit the object ball
Short answer: All commonly-used brands have about the same effectiveness. The player is much more important than the chalk. For the long answer, see: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
I am either very unlucky or pay more attention than the people that I play pool with because I am always getting a kick from this chalk mark. I have had it happen allot causing me to mis my shot. A definite kick where the OB skids forward,,cue jumps up and shot is missed. I hardly ever hear anyone else say this has happened to them. While I complain often. Its like they dont even know what I am referring to.
People sometimes mistake "a normal amount of throw" for "cling/skid/kick," but you could be unlucky. Also, if you chalk too much, have a soft tip, and hit the CB hard a lot, the risk for cling/skid/kick increases. For more info, see: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/throw/cling/
@@DrDaveBilliards I have noticed it happening on small angled shots and not with allot of speed. I can hear a click noise ,,(cue ball jumping) and then the ball skids forward(not rolling)But sliding OFF its path to the pocket. Causing a mis. Seems the angle is always about the same,somewhere around 20 to 30 degrees. I know now if I use english while shooting these shots ,,it wont happen. But some shots I dont want and english applied.
I think you missed an important point of the video. Kamui does stick to the tip very well and provides good grip. However, it also sticks to the CB too much and can results in more frequent and worse cling/skid/kick, which is a real problem.
Yes, cling is a problem, but lousy grip between a cue tip and a cue ball is a much bigger problem. And it occurs at EVERY shot, so it's also much more frequent. It is a wide spread rumour that Kamui chalk is only a much more expensive and has no valuable characteristics over the other chalks (especially Master, which is the most favorite among the most players who never tried anything else). I've been playing for about 20 years and I tested many kinds of chalk (e.g. Master, Pioneer, King, Triangle, National Tournament Chalk, Silver Cup, Championship, Russian Magic Chalk, Pan Xiao Ting, Balabushka, Predator), but ONLY Kamui and Blue Diamond do the job really flawlessly. Now I use Kamui 1.21 (0.98 is too soft for my needs) for playing, and Blue Diamond for break cue. Once more - tip grip is far more important than cling, moreover as you can clean a cue ball whenever you want, but with a bad chalk you cannot count on your cue tip and be assured against misscue.
Check out my other videos and info here: billiards.colostate.edu/threads/chalk.html#comparison All chalk brands I have tested allow you to apply the same amount of sidespin without miscuing if you chalk properly before any off-center shot.
I saw this video, thank you for uploading it. But, in the real world, experience taught me that with a Kamui or Zan tip and with Kamui chalk you can completely forget about the fear of a miscue, so you can fully commit yourself to the game. I NEVER miscue with that combination, while I see many of my oponents miscue, even if they chalk their cue tips regulary.
I use old antique master chalk still has lead in it and is better than the master chalk we use today you can get it for like 15 bucks a cube if u can find it
I'm sorry dr dave but your results are so unreliable that you simply can't make conclusions based on them.. They don't make any sense imo. 3 shots with magic = 0 cling, 4 shots with magic = 90 cling... 2 shots with master = 60, 3 shots = 80. These are unreliable results. The results are almost random. You marked the unexpected results, but the unexpected results are like half of the results! This alone should tell you one of 3 things: 1) the testing methodology is wrong. It doesn't produce the results you expected reliably and therefore you can't come to the conclusions that you wanted. You can't just ignore the results and "bust a myth", you have no reliable data to back it up! 2) there was simply too much human randomness in the execution that the results are random because of this or 3) your beginning hypothesis is wrong and more shots don't mean cleaner cue ball and less cling, which is hard to believe.
I'll tell you why I think this testing methodology is wrong on this subject. 1st of all, i dont think that anyone will disagree that if you put chalk on the contact point there will be a kick. Not even the people at TAOM will disagree with that. The important thing tho is the likelihood of this happening. By my limited knowledge on geometry and physics (I'm sure you are much, much more knowledgeable on these subjects) " geometric points do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute" (from Wikipedia). When 2 balls hit, their contact point is 1 single geometric point, (in perfect conditions). So if there is chalk on this exact point, there will be a kick. Now, lets take the cb, hit it hard and create a blue spot on it. For simplicity reasons, lets say that chalk stayed on the cb on 500 points (i know, i know. Since they don't have any area, the blue spot actually is infinite points, but stay with me on this one). Now hit some 3c shots. Lets say thay the 450 points were cleaned by this, and the remaining 50 still have chalk on them. If you pick the cb with your hand, and it happens to place one of those 50 points as a contact point, there will be a kick. BUT, if you happened to place it by a millimeter of a millimeter of a millimeter differently, and the contact point was clean, trere won't be a kick. This is where the test fails and the results are random. One time, you hit 1 3c shot and it just happened that the point that you placed as a contact point was cleaned, but you could easily place it on one that wasn't, (not saying you did that on purpose, but it happened randomly, hence the random results, since each one of the final testing shots could have gone either way, no matter how much chalk was actually on the cue ball). A true test of likelihood would be the following: Start shooting random shots. No picking the cb with your hand. Chalk before every shot. No set up shots, all random. Hit a big number of shots (let's say 500). Count how many kicks you got. DO THIS TEST WITH THE SAME CHALK AGAIN. Did you have the same results? If yes, good, the result is reliable. Switch chalk. Do this test again, at least 2 times with every chalk. Only then you'll have real life results. Because the randomness of the contact points of the test will be the same as the randomness of the contact points on real life set. Then you can reliably say "with the A chalk there is a x% chance of a kick, with chalk B there is y% chance"
I think I explain the reasons for the variability fairly well in the video. Obviously, it would be better to run many tests with each chalk and each number of shots and throw out obvious outliers. Then, the trends and results would be more consistent and "expected." Hopefully, many others will do similar tests on their own using the same procedures.
DrDaveBilliards don't you see how each test shot after the 3c shots can easily go either way, regardless of how many 3c shots you take beforehand? How do you expect to make a reliable conclusion if the results of this procedure are random? Come on now, i now you are a scientist dr dave. Do you trust experiments that produce random results, mark them as "unexpected" and ignores them? Run this exact test again. Are these results reproducabe? If not, you have to admit that the methodology is wrong.
DrDaveBilliards can you scientifically defend this exact procedure and prove that what i said wasn't true? Can you find something in my hypothesis on my 2nd comment that scientifically doesn't make sense, therefore this procedure is correct and my hypothesis isn't? If yes, then i take my hat to you dr. If not, i expect you to make a follow-up video...
The "little white donuts" (self-adhesive hole-reinforcement labels) are for the Billiard University (BU) playing-ability Exam pool workout ball placements: billiarduniversity.org/exams.html
Not a fan of the testing because of the uncontrolled variable of the rails. Better study would be to play open shots without the CB contacting a rail. Do a slow, med slow, med, med hard, and break shot then test for cling. from what I see with your results, master should be retested and Toam had the least cling on first shot with steady decline except #4.
There are many different ways a test could be done; but for a fair comparison, all of the shots would need to be as close to the same as possible for each chalk.
Concerning Master vs. Taom, look back at the data. For the number of shots increasing from 1 to 4, Taom had cling values of 80-80-40-50 and Master had 90-60-80-30. Obviously, with more data the shot cling averages and trends would be more consistent; but from the limited data available, Taom and Master seems to have similar cling patterns (80-90% after one shot and 30-50% after 4 shots, with a general trend of decreasing cling with the number of shots).
@@DrDaveBilliards I don't mind using Masters I figured I try something different. I tried Lava chalk once I ended up throwing it out. I just got my Taom Pyro chalk in the mail today so i'll try it out this weekend. Any tips on cleaning off old chalk off your tip?
Cool. I looked up your video after seeing this video ( ruclips.net/video/5hpPDXhHNcg/видео.html ) at 14:20; I'm guessing that strange sounding contact and near-miss on the one-ball is caused by cling (Earl said "skid" because they balls have "junk all over them").
The new Magic chalk is not the same texture, size or color of the Magic Dave tested... Very likely there was a change in makers as it was confirmed to never have been made in Russia to begin with.. A change in formula and size was not needed as it was a quality chalk....
In other words predator chalk is trash and the cheap master chalk is still the way to go
4 года назад
No you aren't listening. They are about the same except for price. So if you think a 25.00 cube of chalk is worth it compared to a .50 cent one have at it but you are wasting your $$$ generally . I have resisted the "gimmick" and over priced chalks. I've started with Masters and will die using Masters. Your mileage may vary. :)
I would not nor will i ever buy a cube of kamui chalk. I immediately laugh to myself n e time i ever see a player using any kamui product. No disrespect to n e one intended, just my unwanted thoughts 💭
Uncle Wreckum their tips are not that bad. I've tried their original medium and it plays pretty well. All the other products tho arr either overpriced, or in the case of their chalk, terrible
Agiyi no I understand completely. My uncle who was a shortstop or semi professional ( played on tv a few times ) as well as others have ran rack after rack for decades, and all doing so without kamui products. Of all the professional and world class pool players ( even world champions ) that came to west Monroe Louisiana to play my uncle he sent everyone of packing. ( except one, Allen Hopkins ) and he did it without kamui chalk, products or a damn low deflecting shaft :)
Agiyi oh my bad, i was just venting and talking about why i hate companies like kamui. Sorry bout that, and yes i have a gr8 friend of mine who uses the kamui super soft tips and swears by them. Thanks 🙏 for the conversation and your input. Have a wonderful day
I didn't realize they were "hiding." FYI, I evaluate Taom chalks (along with many others) in the videos here: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Good questions about climate control. The tests were all done together over 1-2 hours of filming in my basement with the windows closed and no AC running. The climate conditions were very stable. There is a lot I don't mention in the video, but I assure you that I was very careful with everything under my control. You and others should do similar tests on your own and post your results. It is not very difficult. I would be curious to see if you and others get different results.
I thought you were asking if the condition (temperature and humidity) changed during the testing. I assure you they did not. By "very stable," I meant that the temperature or humidity (what little we have in Colorado) did not change by any significant amount during the testing. I did not measure exact values, but I assure you that the conditions were very consistent during the short testing time. In my basement, with no windows open (and blinds closed) and no AC or furnace running, conditions don't change much during an entire day, much less over 1-2 hours.
The Reason why there’s no American Snooker players is coz they can’t play on Normal size pocket tables if you waz to Put any American player on a uk pool table it would be so funny
So basically you are saying that the top 30 snooker players are wrong when choosing taom chalk.. let me tell you that i believe more on professional players opinions who plays the game several hours per day, than i do to you theoretical "teacher". Also the proof is in the pudding, just look at the cloth after hour of play with the taom. Thanks for your videos, but theory/theorist and excel will never beat the practical player..
All I am saying is what the test results show.
I am not in the snooker world and I do I know what the top 30 players are saying or why they are saying it (if they are). I do know that sometimes what pros say (pool or snooker) isn't always correct. For example, for many years many snooker world people claimed kick was due to static electricity. This is incorrect, per the info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#cling
And many pool pros in the past claimed throw and spin transfer did not exist. That is also blatantly wrong, per the info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html
I do know that Taom is not very visible on the CB and doesn't show up on the cloth as much because of its color and crumbly/powdery consistency, but it is still there.
I also know that cling/skid/kick does not happen often, and sometimes people mistakenly blame a missed shot on cling/skid/kick when the miss was caused by not compensating one's aim for a normal and expected amount of throw.
of course those 30 were sponsored..
Taom's best abilities are about 7-10 normal shots wihtout reapply and less chalk stains in table and balls. Ofcourse the chalk sticks to balls in in slower phase than others. But it's mostly cleanier chalk ans reduces kicks from skrew shots.
Being good at hitting balls unfortunately doesn't make a person immune to marketing forces, or peer pressure, or basic psychology.
Basically for the lighter snooker balls Taom may be fine... For pool you need additional abrasives. Melling tossed his Taom in his case at the US International after the 3rd miscue on a simple shot... Those miscues may very well have cost him a shot at winning the event.....
Wow! Amazing video. This is clearly hard work, and good research. Really show how much work you put in to the videos and saves us alot of time of figuring out all the variables of the game!
Wow. Actually duplicating a skid is impressive by itself. Great video. -Icon of Sin
workshop777 Try the roll-back follows shot I demonstrate. It’s pretty easy to duplicate if you’re careful.
Good job Dave, very well researched and thoroughly experimented and explained. Billiards is already about a century old sport yet we can't use science to rectify the kick til today. The problem is still there and people still complain but no one is doing anything about it.
I do something about it when I play. I wipe off the CB before each game and every time I have ball in hand, and I refuse to use the fancy “cosmetic-style chalks that persist on the CB longer. Pros also seem to ask referees to clean the CB during a game more than they did in the past (when they see chalk marks on the ball).
@@DrDaveBilliards It's also a lot to do with the balls Dave, they're all made by Aramith and made from a softer material now, can't be so highly polished so there's more natural friction and they will kick/skid even without a chalk mark on the contact point.
In snooker it's worse as there's a nap on the cloth increasing the resistance between the balls, my mate and I play snooker using a 30 year old set of super crystalate balls rather than the Aramith phenolic resin balls that are available now. In league matches we have to use the Aramith's and get about five bad contacts a frame, when we pratcise together using the old SC's we get about five bad contacts in a seven frame session. He uses Triangle chalk and I use Master, both made by Tweetens.
@@vmax4steve524 The cloth has no effect on throw or cling/skid/kick. See the 2nd to last Q&A near the bottom of the page here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/throw/answers/
I don't fully trust something someone on RUclips says until I try it myself, because someone can skew the results the way they want. Another problem is, you aren't a machine, and can't expect to hit the ball the same every time, so your cling results are less than perfect.
I have only tried two other chalks, magic chalk, and Taom, I'll never go back to master. I'm using Taom, and it has really helped my game. Not one miscue since I started using it.
Try the comparative tests yourself to see if you find any actual differences in miscue limit among various chalks. I have tested many chalks and have found no measurable difference in the miscue limit. See the videos and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Although, I do like that Taom stays on the CB less than Master.
Great insights. I was also wondering if the humidity level would affect the performance of chalk. I figured the texture of chalk becomes different when it is in raining season, or when it's been used for a while comparing to new chalks.
It can affect how it goes on the tip and how it sticks to the CB, but I don’t think the playing performance would be any different (but I have not carefully tested this).
Little late to the party but here's my recent chalk story. Someone gave me this link a few days ago when discussing chalk. Always used Master chalk because that is what is in pool halls. I scoffed at the new golly gee whiz chalks that have come onto the scene. Recently a pro pool vlogger was touting Taom chalk. I thought okay, I'll get a cube and give it a go. Picked up a cube of the Taom PRYO chalk off Amazon. Wasn't expecting much or much different than Master chalk. In your test you mention the Taom you tested was more "powdery" than the Master chalk. This certainly isn't the case with the PYRO chalk. The PYRO chalk has an almost a paste like consistency that seems like you're painting your tip as you apply the chalk. Definitely different than Master chalk. The other day I was throwing 15 balls on the table and pocket the entire rack without re-chalking. Sort of an unscientific test. No miscue issues. I wouldn't do this in a competition but I certainly wouldn't bother chalking up after each shot. Lemme tell you, tough habit to break. Often you grab the chalk again after just chalking as sort of a mental crutch as you ponder a more tricky shot. As for the 'playability' of the Taom PRYO chalk I noticed an immediate difference in feel. Meaning I could apply the same spin on the cue ball with less effort. Particularly on draw shots. Players mileage may vary but this is my experience. I'm sold on the chalk.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. FYI, I look at Taom Pyro and many other chalks in the other videos and summaries here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
DrDaveBilliards of all the cues and chalk that you have tested, what kind of cues and chalk do you personally use and like best??? Thanks for all that you do!
I like LD shafts for the reasons here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue.html#advantages
I prefer a hard tip for the reasons here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/cue_tip.html#hardness
I prefer Master chalk because that's what I have always used, and it works; but, honestly, I don't think the choice of chalk brand is really that important.
My current playing cue is a 12.4 Predator Revo. Honestly, I don't think the choice of cue is really that important either as long as you spend time with the cue to get used to it (i.e., don't keep changing equipment). The player is much more important than the cue, tip type, or chalk brand.
incredible video Dr. Dave
Thanks. FYI, more videos and other info on this topic can be found here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Enjoy!
DrDaveBilliards Thank you!
I'll throw my two cents: When Taom first came to market or was about to. My friend who knows some of the people behind the product got a preview sample of their first batch of Taom chalk. We tested it in the following manner: We would play 1 on 1 for several hours. I was wearing a black t-shirt and we purposefully would not clean or wipe the cueball for no reason. After several hours I tried wiping the cueball against my shirt and there was absolutely no residue of the chalk whatsoever. The idea behind the chalk is this to begin with: It does not stick the cueball when shooting so there's less kicks because of that. Afterwards all Taom brand chalks I've tried have behaved the same way. I do get kicks still sometimes but they are in the micro-kick variety that don't have this audible crunching sound and/or a clear hop of the CB. This testing methodology is fine in itself. That is, if there's chalk on the CB there's gonna be kicks. But then saying that Taom doesn't result in less kicks or no kicks is absolutely a wrong conclusion. I can tell you from experience that Taom is for me at least the best chalk there is. I buy my own and I'm not affiliated with the people who produce it. Don't kill me thanks :)
See my latest Taom Pyro chalk test video:
ruclips.net/video/-oU2IlrHARk/видео.html
So your freind knows some of these con artists, ask him how much they stole
I've read your comment about chalk below a comment also watched lots of chalk comparison videos and thank you again for this video. But i've noticed something different about chalks. In my experience differences comes out if cue tip is so flat and if humidty levels also high or balls dirty. On nicely shaped and thick cue tip all chalks works well but here in Africa people using same cue tips for months without maintanence when i apply their cheap chalk also mine master, navigator and blue diamond chalk, all of them giving different results. So i think real differences comes out in this conditions and i think some brands using some kind of oil which helps stick on flat cue tips. Also when use master chalk on 10mm snooker cue to play pool, miscue levels changing and gives bad results than navigator. I think master chalk leaves thick coat on cue tip and effects like car tyre on sand then slips.
Thanks for the info.
Well, I actually learned something about pool today.
Richard's World Traveler I’m glad to hear it. What specifically did you learn? Or what was the most interesting or useful thing you learned?
I did too. Specifically don't spend too much money for chalk!
I actually like Silver Cup Tournament green because it matches the felt where I play and looks pretty on the tip 🙂
Wow! Thank you for posting this and all of the other links!
You're welcome. I aim to swerve. :)
Which chalk you think is best..? For the money and Performance
Romeo Zamora I honestly don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I use Master chalk, and the only time I miscue is when I execute a bad stroke. One thing I don’t like is a chalk that sticks to the CB. For more info, see the BD articles beneath the videos here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Finally a reason not to use Kamui, aside from the exorbitant price! Thanks Dr. Dave, great video. Keep up the awesome work.
p.s. Is that a Mosconi Cup jersey you are wearing? I think you would make a great coach for the US team...
I definitely don't like how easily Kamui and similar chalks stick to and stay on the CB.
The jersey is from a past BEF Junior National Tournament.
Thank you for suggesting I would be a good coach for the US Mosconi Cup Team; but I probably don't have the patience and calmness required, and I'm probably not the best personality match for the players.
This was a brilliant video.
Thanks. FYI, and have other chalk-testing videos and data here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Check it out.
What a well done, detailed video.
Thank you. Be sure to check out my other chalk testing videos and other info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
I've searched the subject on 'kick' many times, it is said nobody knows what caused it and it could be many factors, all the way down to quantum mechanics, so I gave up believing chalk is the cause. I think way more players in pool blame the kick than people in snooker, to which I am amazed since straight-cut pockets are so much more forgiving in pool, even if pool pockets are round cut, it is still much easier than potting in snooker.
FYI, lots of info and videos related to cling/skid/kick are available here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#cling
Check it out.
@DrDave Wow and thanks for your video's! Video/test idea: The difference in tip hardness when it comes to jumping or masse shots. Thanks again and great work!!!
Thank you for the positive feedback and for the suggestion. Basically, a hard tip (e.g., phenolic) is better for jumping and a softer tip is better for masse. For more info, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue/jump/
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/masse/cue/
Nice idea to emulate a skid and show it in slo-mo. Note that for some reason yet to be unfolded in snooker when a kick occurs it is an object ball jumping rather than a cue ball, at least from my own viewing experience.
As for TAOM and snooker pros, you can easily track their reviews saying basically "too many miscues" and "not impressed". That was until they received a replacement (free I suppose) from TAOM coming up with 2.0 version. Which snooker players finally found much better.
I tried older version and although didn't find anything special which could justify the price tag in my eyes, I confirm that it doesn't leave chalk marks on the cue ball. Which hopefully makes snooker players life better.
Next chapter I guess is "chalk wars" in attempt to ban those "skidding" types of that. Because if you use one of "non-residue" chalks and your opponent does not, you are still in danger of getting a skid from the mark he left on the cue ball.
Both the CB and OB can jump when there is cling/skid/kick with topspin or bottom spin.
I tested both versions of Taom in my previous video and saw no performance differences with those tests. Check it out:
ruclips.net/video/gcWIM6svdcE/видео.html
I'm with you about the use of "sticky" chalks. It is not only bad for the users, it is also bad for their opponents.
If you think about this phenomenon deeply, you realise that the area of contact between cue and object ball is so small that it is probably the size of only few grains of chalk. That explains the inconsistency of results. On the fifth shot, even if only a few grains of chalk remain in the right place you would still get the 90% throw effect. The fact that it generally diminishes over time means that the effect must be dependent on grain density in the contact area. And it could also be dependent on surface condition of the balls (scratches, etc.)
What about the shape of the grains of chalk? E.g. would spherical grains introduce more or less throw?
Good questions. Although, when there is a chalk mark at the contact point between the balls, the amount of throw (cling/skid/kick) is very consistent, and I think more than a "few grains of chalk" come into play. The grain size is extremely small ... much smaller than the size of the contact patch between the balls. The inconsistency during the test is due to the variability in how the chalk particles leave the ball surface over consecutive shots.
I don't mind being corrected and the only thing I can rely personally from experience is that if you hit a ball soft enough anything is possible and also IMHO , all felt is not created equal and the worst part about simonis lack of felt for me anyways seems to have even more cling just not enough nap for my long old pool stroke and follow through . I was a great pool player until these faster felts came along and then I had to slow my stroke down to 20 percent of its normal speed or rhythm now I am constantly analyzing my stroke during a shot as apposed to the contact point and angles in and out ............ in short what used to be natural has become unnatural , I do not think it is just one thing in general but rather the materials used even rails are different on there return . if I were to set up 10 kickback shots that were a given in the past the degree of difficulty has increased drastically . I realize its a different topic than cling but since cling is an anomaly I think it would only be fair to address the entire industry and its lack of consistency ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I also have this problem on simonis in which I was a seriously good combination maker by my own theory and technique but now I can have 2 balls and literally watch them squirt a full diamond away from the pocket and I think its the equipment not me by any stretch .
Why most pool simulation games like Pure Pool doesn't simulate cling/skid/kick? I know it is possible to apply physical properties like friction differently for different locations for the sphere's surface in a physics simulation but idk how computationally expensive it is to simulate cling/skid/kick accurately
Many "real-world" effects are missing in simulators. Even if they attempt to model the effects, the result will never be perfect. The real world is complicated.
There's a lot of debate over the Taom chalk due to it taking over the snooker world the way it has.. would it be fair to assume that because snooker is different to pool, kicks may happen under slightly different conditions? I'm not entirely sure how to word it, but the tables and balls are different, snooker has heated tables... Taom may be kickless in snooker but not necessarily in pool? I'm not saying kicks happen for different reasons, that would be a bit near-sighted, they're both cue sports after all. This might not be related because snooker is a totally different thing but there's clearly enough debate over the chalk that it needs to be said, snooker isn't pool.
Aside from that, very interesting results. With the follow through shot you mention at 2:40 , couldn't you just put more pace on the shot? Or would all the top spin still be killed on contact? Looking at the cue ball after contact it seems to go off its natural path so it might not even matter if you could go up table, just curious.
The physics of cling/skid/kick is no different between snooker and pool, and the ball surfaces properties are identical as far as I know (or too similar to have any significant physics effect differences).
If you use more speed on the follow shot, you will get more topspin and more follow, but much of will still be lost (and the CB will hop more). However, you won't know to use more speed, unless you know cling/skid/kick will occur; and if it doesn't occur (because the distance isn't exactly right, or if you apply some unintentional side), the CB will follow far too much.
What is majorly different is the weight of the balls... Taom works well for snooker... As far as kicks Strachan thought the issue was static and started treating their cloth with an anti static agent.. Just happened to coincide with the Taom claims.. We had one kick in the International 9ball on the TV table.. It was using guess what???
Could you do a "blind" test with the chalk, and include several other people to duplicate the same shots? I'm guessing the outcome would be statistically insignificant. Thanks for the theory.
That's a good idea, but I've already done enough careful testing to already know there is no real or meaningful performance differences among all of the chalk brands, if you chalk before each shot. See all of the videos, articles, and summarized results here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/chalk.html#comparison
I get the idea and thank you. However, in the slow mos, the chaulked dot does not strike the object ball. Point still taken😉
I am pretty sure it does because I rolled back the CB so the chalk mark would be at the right place. Also, when the chalk mark does not hit the CB, the CB does not hop and it gets good follow action. When the chalk mark does hit, the result is very different. Try it at a table. Why do you think the chalk mark on the CB does not hit the OB?
DrDaveBilliards ahh you marked the top dot which strikes the object ball. As I was watching, I forgot that part and was looking for the dot where the cue strikes the cue ball to hit the object ball
When my wages aren’t being garnished, I’ll get your dvd set. I do enjoy your videos
@@james3339 FYI, when you are ready, product info and purchasing advice can be found here:
drdavebilliards.com/products.html
So what’s the best chalk?
Short answer: All commonly-used brands have about the same effectiveness. The player is much more important than the chalk.
For the long answer, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
I waisted 25 bucks on Kamui chalk and found out it’s useful on jump shots, but otherwise it is a useless waste of money.
can i ask what kind cue chalk is the master chalk with no hole in middle
@@juanantoniodeguzman6336 It is regular Master chalk after chalking properly:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/how-to/
@DrDaveBilliards Thank you so much for the help. It really helps me
@@juanantoniodeguzman6336 You're welcome. I aim to swerve. :)
Can you make a video on making the 1 off the 9-ball break?
That's covered in the videos and articles here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/break.html#9-ball
It's already time they invent a tip that doesn't need chalk to eliminate that problem altogether.
It does seem ridiculous that we can't find something better than "skin from a dead cow." :(
yeah a tip that don't need chaulk. That's the answer. Anybody???
Its a called a milkdud.. the tips are great
@@DrDaveBilliards
Better than a live cow I guess 🤷♂️
I am either very unlucky or pay more attention than the people that I play pool with because I am always getting a kick from this chalk mark. I have had it happen allot causing me to mis my shot. A definite kick where the OB skids forward,,cue jumps up and shot is missed.
I hardly ever hear anyone else say this has happened to them. While I complain often. Its like they dont even know what I am referring to.
People sometimes mistake "a normal amount of throw" for "cling/skid/kick," but you could be unlucky. Also, if you chalk too much, have a soft tip, and hit the CB hard a lot, the risk for cling/skid/kick increases. For more info, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/throw/cling/
@@DrDaveBilliards I have noticed it happening on small angled shots and not with allot of speed. I can hear a click noise ,,(cue ball jumping) and then the ball skids forward(not rolling)But sliding OFF its path to the pocket. Causing a mis.
Seems the angle is always about the same,somewhere around 20 to 30 degrees.
I know now if I use english while shooting these shots ,,it wont happen. But some shots I dont want and english applied.
I’d like to know the information about those spots on your pool table. Thanks.
They are called “self adhesive hole-reinforcement labels,” and they are available at office supply stores or online (e.g., through Amazon.com).
DrDaveBilliards or little white donuts 😂
@@snjadventures5429 More specific: 2D-micro-Donuts. Scientific source: Intitut H. Klöttenschreck (Berlin)
Finally a proof that Kamui has the maximum grip so it's worth the price, because it's the best chalk so far.
I think you missed an important point of the video. Kamui does stick to the tip very well and provides good grip. However, it also sticks to the CB too much and can results in more frequent and worse cling/skid/kick, which is a real problem.
Yes, cling is a problem, but lousy grip between a cue tip and a cue ball is a much bigger problem. And it occurs at EVERY shot, so it's also much more frequent.
It is a wide spread rumour that Kamui chalk is only a much more expensive and has no valuable characteristics over the other chalks (especially Master, which is the most favorite among the most players who never tried anything else). I've been playing for about 20 years and I tested many kinds of chalk (e.g. Master, Pioneer, King, Triangle, National Tournament Chalk, Silver Cup, Championship, Russian Magic Chalk, Pan Xiao Ting, Balabushka, Predator), but ONLY Kamui and Blue Diamond do the job really flawlessly. Now I use Kamui 1.21 (0.98 is too soft for my needs) for playing, and Blue Diamond for break cue. Once more - tip grip is far more important than cling, moreover as you can clean a cue ball whenever you want, but with a bad chalk you cannot count on your cue tip and be assured against misscue.
Check out my other videos and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/threads/chalk.html#comparison
All chalk brands I have tested allow you to apply the same amount of sidespin without miscuing if you chalk properly before any off-center shot.
I saw this video, thank you for uploading it.
But, in the real world, experience taught me that with a Kamui or Zan tip and with Kamui chalk you can completely forget about the fear of a miscue, so you can fully commit yourself to the game. I NEVER miscue with that combination, while I see many of my oponents miscue, even if they chalk their cue tips regulary.
Miscues are usually due to the player (e.g., poor stroke), not the chalk.
what is your preferred chalk when you play?
Master; although, I honestly don't think the choice of chalk brand is that important.
I use old antique master chalk still has lead in it and is better than the master chalk we use today you can get it for like 15 bucks a cube if u can find it
I only use Taom on my break and jump cues..!!!
Does Anny one know where toam chalk come from ?
Finland.
I'm sorry dr dave but your results are so unreliable that you simply can't make conclusions based on them.. They don't make any sense imo. 3 shots with magic = 0 cling, 4 shots with magic = 90 cling...
2 shots with master = 60, 3 shots = 80. These are unreliable results. The results are almost random. You marked the unexpected results, but the unexpected results are like half of the results! This alone should tell you one of 3 things: 1) the testing methodology is wrong. It doesn't produce the results you expected reliably and therefore you can't come to the conclusions that you wanted. You can't just ignore the results and "bust a myth", you have no reliable data to back it up! 2) there was simply too much human randomness in the execution that the results are random because of this or 3) your beginning hypothesis is wrong and more shots don't mean cleaner cue ball and less cling, which is hard to believe.
I'll tell you why I think this testing methodology is wrong on this subject.
1st of all, i dont think that anyone will disagree that if you put chalk on the contact point there will be a kick. Not even the people at TAOM will disagree with that. The important thing tho is the likelihood of this happening.
By my limited knowledge on geometry and physics (I'm sure you are much, much more knowledgeable on these subjects) " geometric points do not have any length, area, volume or any other dimensional attribute" (from Wikipedia). When 2 balls hit, their contact point is 1 single geometric point, (in perfect conditions). So if there is chalk on this exact point, there will be a kick.
Now, lets take the cb, hit it hard and create a blue spot on it. For simplicity reasons, lets say that chalk stayed on the cb on 500 points (i know, i know. Since they don't have any area, the blue spot actually is infinite points, but stay with me on this one). Now hit some 3c shots. Lets say thay the 450 points were cleaned by this, and the remaining 50 still have chalk on them. If you pick the cb with your hand, and it happens to place one of those 50 points as a contact point, there will be a kick. BUT, if you happened to place it by a millimeter of a millimeter of a millimeter differently, and the contact point was clean, trere won't be a kick. This is where the test fails and the results are random. One time, you hit 1 3c shot and it just happened that the point that you placed as a contact point was cleaned, but you could easily place it on one that wasn't, (not saying you did that on purpose, but it happened randomly, hence the random results, since each one of the final testing shots could have gone either way, no matter how much chalk was actually on the cue ball).
A true test of likelihood would be the following:
Start shooting random shots. No picking the cb with your hand. Chalk before every shot. No set up shots, all random. Hit a big number of shots (let's say 500). Count how many kicks you got. DO THIS TEST WITH THE SAME CHALK AGAIN. Did you have the same results? If yes, good, the result is reliable. Switch chalk. Do this test again, at least 2 times with every chalk. Only then you'll have real life results. Because the randomness of the contact points of the test will be the same as the randomness of the contact points on real life set. Then you can reliably say "with the A chalk there is a x% chance of a kick, with chalk B there is y% chance"
I think I explain the reasons for the variability fairly well in the video. Obviously, it would be better to run many tests with each chalk and each number of shots and throw out obvious outliers. Then, the trends and results would be more consistent and "expected." Hopefully, many others will do similar tests on their own using the same procedures.
DrDaveBilliards don't you see how each test shot after the 3c shots can easily go either way, regardless of how many 3c shots you take beforehand? How do you expect to make a reliable conclusion if the results of this procedure are random? Come on now, i now you are a scientist dr dave. Do you trust experiments that produce random results, mark them as "unexpected" and ignores them? Run this exact test again. Are these results reproducabe? If not, you have to admit that the methodology is wrong.
If you run a large number of experiments, the trends would be much more clear, and the results would be much more confident.
DrDaveBilliards can you scientifically defend this exact procedure and prove that what i said wasn't true? Can you find something in my hypothesis on my 2nd comment that scientifically doesn't make sense, therefore this procedure is correct and my hypothesis isn't? If yes, then i take my hat to you dr. If not, i expect you to make a follow-up video...
What is the reason for the pins over the table?
Do you mean the golf tees on the rail? If so, they were used to mark the normal and maximum (due to cling/skid/kick) amounts of throw.
DrDaveBilliards No I mean the screws or whatever over the surface of the table. Is there a purpose for them?
The "little white donuts" (self-adhesive hole-reinforcement labels) are for the Billiard University (BU) playing-ability Exam pool workout ball placements:
billiarduniversity.org/exams.html
Not a fan of the testing because of the uncontrolled variable of the rails. Better study would be to play open shots without the CB contacting a rail. Do a slow, med slow, med, med hard, and break shot then test for cling. from what I see with your results, master should be retested and Toam had the least cling on first shot with steady decline except #4.
There are many different ways a test could be done; but for a fair comparison, all of the shots would need to be as close to the same as possible for each chalk.
Concerning Master vs. Taom, look back at the data. For the number of shots increasing from 1 to 4, Taom had cling values of 80-80-40-50 and Master had 90-60-80-30. Obviously, with more data the shot cling averages and trends would be more consistent; but from the limited data available, Taom and Master seems to have similar cling patterns (80-90% after one shot and 30-50% after 4 shots, with a general trend of decreasing cling with the number of shots).
Crap and I just ordered a Taom chalk which cost me $23 with shipping for one piece of chalk when I can get three pieces of Masters chalk for a dollar.
Master chalk if fine. For more info, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
@@DrDaveBilliards I don't mind using Masters I figured I try something different. I tried Lava chalk once I ended up throwing it out. I just got my Taom Pyro chalk in the mail today so i'll try it out this weekend. Any tips on cleaning off old chalk off your tip?
BTW My cue is a week old so it isn't even broke in yet.
@@GBM6988 You can just wipe it off with a paper towel, but I wouldn't worry about it.
@@DrDaveBilliards Ok thank you I appreciate your input and love your videos.
Cool. I looked up your video after seeing this video ( ruclips.net/video/5hpPDXhHNcg/видео.html ) at 14:20; I'm guessing that strange sounding contact and near-miss on the one-ball is caused by cling (Earl said "skid" because they balls have "junk all over them").
That was most definitely cling/skid/kick.
How can you even miss them Pockets there Massive
Great ... now I will be even more embarrassed when I miss. :(
Your magic chalk looks different from mine
leoandsan I’ve had this cube for about four years now.
DrDaveBilliards thanks Dr. Dave. Great video btw
leoandsan You’re welcome ... and thank you. I aim to swerve. :)
latest version of RMC comes in gold wrap AFAIK, and before it was in black
The new Magic chalk is not the same texture, size or color of the Magic Dave tested... Very likely there was a change in makers as it was confirmed to never have been made in Russia to begin with.. A change in formula and size was not needed as it was a quality chalk....
In other words predator chalk is trash and the cheap master chalk is still the way to go
No you aren't listening. They are about the same except for price. So if you think a 25.00 cube of chalk is worth it compared to a .50 cent one have at it but you are wasting your $$$ generally . I have resisted the "gimmick" and over priced chalks. I've started with Masters and will die using Masters. Your mileage may vary. :)
I would not nor will i ever buy a cube of kamui chalk. I immediately laugh to myself n e time i ever see a player using any kamui product. No disrespect to n e one intended, just my unwanted thoughts 💭
Uncle Wreckum their tips are not that bad. I've tried their original medium and it plays pretty well. All the other products tho arr either overpriced, or in the case of their chalk, terrible
Agiyi no I understand completely. My uncle who was a shortstop or semi professional ( played on tv a few times ) as well as others have ran rack after rack for decades, and all doing so without kamui products. Of all the professional and world class pool players ( even world champions ) that came to west Monroe Louisiana to play my uncle he sent everyone of packing. ( except one, Allen Hopkins ) and he did it without kamui chalk, products or a damn low deflecting shaft :)
Uncle Wreckum i didn't say they are essential, I said they are pretty good.
Agiyi oh my bad, i was just venting and talking about why i hate companies like kamui. Sorry bout that, and yes i have a gr8 friend of mine who uses the kamui super soft tips and swears by them. Thanks 🙏 for the conversation and your input. Have a wonderful day
Uncle Wreckum no problem man, i understand. Have a nice day too!
If toam is not a rip why does the the company hide from plain view. Run rabbit here come the police
I didn't realize they were "hiding." FYI, I evaluate Taom chalks (along with many others) in the videos here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/chalk/comparison/
Yet they claim Taom is kick free
Marketing claims are not always truthful.
Good questions about climate control. The tests were all done together over 1-2 hours of filming in my basement with the windows closed and no AC running. The climate conditions were very stable. There is a lot I don't mention in the video, but I assure you that I was very careful with everything under my control. You and others should do similar tests on your own and post your results. It is not very difficult. I would be curious to see if you and others get different results.
I thought you were asking if the condition (temperature and humidity) changed during the testing. I assure you they did not. By "very stable," I meant that the temperature or humidity (what little we have in Colorado) did not change by any significant amount during the testing. I did not measure exact values, but I assure you that the conditions were very consistent during the short testing time. In my basement, with no windows open (and blinds closed) and no AC or furnace running, conditions don't change much during an entire day, much less over 1-2 hours.
The Reason why there’s no American Snooker players is coz they can’t play on Normal size pocket tables if you waz to Put any American player on a uk pool table it would be so funny
As funny as The Rocket getting schooled by American pool players on his own show?