09-12-2002, 08:49 AM
I was talking with a firiend last night. In passing, he marveled at how Mosconi was able to run 526 balls. Then he added, “And that was without all of the technological advancements we enjoy today.” I have heard this sentiment expressed several times, but can not honestly see this supposed tide of evolutionary progress.
Am I missing something? What are they? Inquiring minds want to know!
In recent weeks I have had occasion to play on a Brunswick table, circa 19050, using a old Burton Spain cue. I did not come away with the feeling that the state of billiard equipment has advanced by any great degree. The table was predictable and responsive, and the cue played like a dream. Unfortunately, the balls and chalk were new, so I can’t make a valid comparison on those aspects.
There is no question in my mind, that the science of billiards has made some quantum leaps. Prolific writings and research in the past 50 years have unlocked many of the mysteries that could previously only be learned through years of experience. And likewise, science has explained why the traditional table and cue manufacturing techniques and materials provide superior results.
There have been a number of quasi-advancements; Sardo racks, gloves, and a potpourri of tip paraphernalia. But when it comes down the basic elements, the table, balls, chalk, and cue, have there been any significant changes?
Assuming my observations are correct, I am not suggesting that this lack of advancement is a bad thing. There is a simple elegance about the status quo of billiards, unlike the chaotic ?progress? of golf which hinges on the latest-and-greatest club and ball technology.
What’ya think? Am I missing the trees for the forest?
Am I missing something? What are they? Inquiring minds want to know!
In recent weeks I have had occasion to play on a Brunswick table, circa 19050, using a old Burton Spain cue. I did not come away with the feeling that the state of billiard equipment has advanced by any great degree. The table was predictable and responsive, and the cue played like a dream. Unfortunately, the balls and chalk were new, so I can’t make a valid comparison on those aspects.
There is no question in my mind, that the science of billiards has made some quantum leaps. Prolific writings and research in the past 50 years have unlocked many of the mysteries that could previously only be learned through years of experience. And likewise, science has explained why the traditional table and cue manufacturing techniques and materials provide superior results.
There have been a number of quasi-advancements; Sardo racks, gloves, and a potpourri of tip paraphernalia. But when it comes down the basic elements, the table, balls, chalk, and cue, have there been any significant changes?
Assuming my observations are correct, I am not suggesting that this lack of advancement is a bad thing. There is a simple elegance about the status quo of billiards, unlike the chaotic ?progress? of golf which hinges on the latest-and-greatest club and ball technology.
What’ya think? Am I missing the trees for the forest?