Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / 2013 Nationals: My review (
View Older Thread |
View Newer Thread)
First |
1 | 2 |
Last
| nakdak
- 26 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 6
|
I humbly submit that the Chicago tourney was world class. Yes, I would like to have seen it played in a larger area with more spectator space, and perhaps the pucks did bounce off the tables a bit much, though I would caution myself against overstatement concerning Gold Standard vs. Dynamo, but it was a well-needed event and a refreshing change of scenery. Not to mention, I thought the Chicago crew with Mark in tow expedited the events quite well. And though the turnout wasn't exactly what had been expected we did get two international teams show up. Hey, that's great. I'd come again.
Also, Looking on the video forums, I haven't yet seen any of the footage captured at the 2013 Chicago tourney. Has it not been posted yet, or will it be shown on a different platform? And, if there are other videos of the tourney posted onto private blogs and such, please post a link. I can't wait to view some of the matches I missed.
One last point of interest: I have to thank Andrew for his comments concerning the handicap tournament. He's absolutely right on, and I think we've overlooked the reason we hold a handicap event. It's not so the AH greats compete with the margin of certainty that they get during the singles events. It's so people in the lower end of the ranking spectrum can experience the sport on a world stage with the hope of winning and thusly growing interest in AH. As for Chris Aston's victory, as I recall Billy scored 7 unanswered points to win game 1, then pressed Chris extremely well in games 2 and 3. If ranking someone as a 1 truly means they won't or can't or even shouldn't win, then why play the event at all? But for those of you who have a newfound fear of Chris Aston, let me put your minds at ease. I told him afterward that I hoped he enjoyed his handicap, because he'll never get it again, to which he laughed and understood completely.
Again, thanks to the Chicago crew. Overall, I'd do it all again, and I'd enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
| Q
- 27 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 497
|
| Thanks for the feedback Nick. Re: Videos...I'll be editing them and uploading ones I have over the next few of weeks. Haven't gone through all of the footage to see which ones I have yet. Only have 1 up so far [url]http://www.vimeo.com/airhockey[/url as they get done.
|
|
|
| tableman
- 27 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 690
|
I want to respond to some of the issues about the Gold Standard tables not holding the puck on banks. Yes, I agree that the rails did not hold the puck as well as they ideally should. There are several possible reasons for this but the main reason is: while the rails were broken in (at least a month to month-and-a-half play on them), they were not as broken in as rails with many more game plays on them. We knew that in order to have a Nationals at all this year, we would need to break in some rails. So in early summer I brought 4 sets of rails to Chicago and between me and Goran we swapped out the rails periodically on the 2 tables at BZ and warehoused the used rails. Then we put the used rails on 4 of the tables shipped in for the tournament which were otherwise new.
Ironically the most broken-in tables were the 2 BZ tables up on the level above the pit. The Chicago players played at BZ just before the tournament and told me the tables there were holding banks. And the best broken-in table was the one right by the chart table, which wasn't used in the tournament. The Chicago organizing group kept a watch on all the tables Wed., Thurs., Friday, to consider the possibility of moving the 2 BZ tables down into the pit. That would have taken some extra work (disassembling overheads, etc.) but I had no objection to it. The consensus was not to move the BZ tables into the pit, that the rails were holding well enough.
If you are comparing the GSG tables at the tournament to old Dynamo tables at Speedy's, or SRO, or even to the Dynamo tournament tables... just remember what Dynamo tables are like after only a month or two of play. Think back to when Andy first got the tournament tables from Dynamo. For several years we had problems with banks flying off (just ask Mark Nizzi). Even after 10 years or so, some players still think those tables don't hold banks (just ask Mark Nizzi. :) So it takes a lot of dirt build-up on the rails for tables to perform ideally.
I have always insisted on the importance of broken-in tables for tournaments. So I'm not satisfied with the performance of the tables. They were way better than new but not as good as a year-old broken-in table. In retrospect we probably should have moved the BZ tables down, especially for the final matches.
(more in next post)
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 27 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 690
|
Two other less likely reasons for pucks flying:
1. The run of tables which went to Chicago has a "satin" finish on the top. That means smooth but not glossy. It's in between what Brunswick used (matte finish which is grainy) and what Dynamo uses now (glossy). Eventually all playfields shine up with use and get glossy. We have used both satin and glossy finishes on our tables and have now gone to all glossy. The lack of gloss on some of the tables may or may not have contributed to pucks flying off. In my experience it doesn't make much difference, the rails are the main factor.
2. The Gold Standard tables are designed to play closer to a Brunswick than to a Dynamo. Many of you have only played on Dynamos so don't have first-hand experience with what I'm talking about. Those who started on Brunswicks know what I mean. Brunswicks were a bit quicker with more kick off the rail.
When I designed the Dynamo table I got almost everything I wanted but technically there were a couple things they couldn't do. I can do those things now with Gold Standard. One tweak increases the air flow a bit, the other affects the rails. I searched out the original Brunswick rail material and though it's harder to get, I managed to do so. It's a little bit harder than Dynamo's rail material which gives it better bounce.
So even with equally broken-in rails, a GSG table should be a bit quicker than a Brunswick with livelier rails. Which means an adjustment on hitting a hard bank compared to what you're used to on a Dynamo. It may take a little less power on a GSG table to hit a bank of equal speed to a bank on a Dynamo. Which means the puck may fly if you hit it as hard as you would on a Dynamo.
These differences are subtle but apparent to players at high skill levels, i.e., players like us. I think that IF I have been successful in building a table that plays like a Brunswick, it will be good for the sport. Faster play, livelier double-banks, etc. Also, less strain on arms and wrists after years and years of high-level play.
If it turns out that, even under ideal conditions, the player base doesn't like my tweaks and prefers the Dynamo-style of play, then of course I would consider "dumbing down" my table to the Dynamo level. It would actually be cheaper and easier to do so.
I can guarantee you this though: I'm the only table manufacturer that even listens to what tournament competitors want. The others truly don't give a shit. One of the reasons I got back into the business was that Dynamo had abandoned the Photon and was no longer selling a USAA-sanctioned coin table. That was just unacceptable. After I announced my intention to build a table, Dynamo introduced the sanctioned Best Shot but they don't push it and don't sell many. What they push is the Fire Storm with no centerline; shield across the middle; black light only; bright orange rails; and annoying lights running up and down the rails. And a loud speaker right inside the goal.
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 27 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 168
|
It's not just the rails, there were straights shots down the middle, where if they touched any part of the mallet, the puck flew off the table. There was low confidence of getting the puck back if you hit a hard shot and missed. Seems like an airflow issue, too strong combined with the finish of the tabletop.
I noticed that the surface of the most broken in Dynamos concave slightly from the rails in towards the middle.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 27 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 690
|
Davisl said: It's not just the rails, there were straights shots down the middle, where if they touched any part of the mallet, the puck flew off the table. There was low confidence of getting the puck back if you hit a hard shot and missed. Seems like an airflow issue, too strong combined with the finish of the tabletop.
I noticed that the surface of the most broken in Dynamos concave slightly from the rails in towards the middle. |
Davis, go check out our table at the Century Cinemark theatre in Mountain View. It has a glossy surface so I'd be interested in your opinion. Don't know how broken in it is, it's been there a couple months.
Keep in mind that you use a translucent hard mallet, might be too much for a table with more airflow. Did you try a regular low-top?
The concavity of the Dynamo tables is something on relatively newer Dynamos, not on the ones made when I was there in the 80's and 90's. The reason is, they took out a lot of the support underneath the playfield. Concavity on a playfield is not a good thing, it will cause the puck to fly more. The old Brunswicks got VERY concave because there was basically nothing supporting the playfield so it tended to bow in the middle. And that caused pucks to fly off more. The more consistently flat the surface is, the better it holds the puck in my experience, as you might guess.
|
|
|
|
| Q
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 497
|
tableman said:
Davis, go check out our table at the Century Cinemark theatre in Mountain View. It has a glossy surface so I'd be interested in your opinion. Don't know how broken in it is, it's been there a couple months.
Keep in mind that you use a translucent hard mallet, might be too much for a table with more airflow. Did you try a regular low-top?
The concavity of the Dynamo tables is something on relatively newer Dynamos, not on the ones made when I was there in the 80's and 90's. The reason is, they took out a lot of the support underneath the playfield. Concavity on a playfield is not a good thing, it will cause the puck to fly more. The old Brunswicks got VERY concave because there was basically nothing supporting the playfield so it tended to bow in the middle. And that caused pucks to fly off more. The more consistently flat the surface is, the better it holds the puck in my experience, as you might guess.
|
I would agree with Davis' assessment and not relate it just to the mallet. Pucks sometimes wouldn't even make it to the first rail or as Davis said straight shots would fly. Billy's method of comparing videos will be the indication/metric to show this and I will try to get those up ASAP for that purpose. I think we will see at least a 2x increase for same players and the rate of pucks leaving the table and this method doesn't take into account players taking a bit of power off of their shot in order to try and adjust or the double sided taped pucks used by most of the matches. And having played on both tables (matte and glossy) a lot in Naperville, I think it is consistent between the finishes. Sounds like the airflow could be cut back to try and remedy?
|
|
|
| Pedro Otero
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 269
|
| I talked with danny on friday about the tables. We agreed that the tables was not the best, and since we are probably the players who stroke the puck harder between master-elite players, it gave us a little disadvantage. We did some adjustments to our ofensive to be sucessfull in the tournament. Adjustments can be done, but i believe we cant play our best in a table were the pucks fly out even in a straight shot; and players and spectators security is a big issue: just 3 weeks before the tournament, a flying puck hits my face just 1 centimeter from my left eye (and i was reffing, not playing) in a good dynamo table which holds the banks very well. IMO this is the most important thing about this tables.
|
|
|
|
| Davisl
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 168
|
I played on the brand new Gold Standard table near my house and I actually liked it a lot. I had to drag my buddy who had never played before, so I'm pretty sure I wasn't hitting any hard bank shots on him to test if it flew off or not. I will drop by again and pretend I'm trying to get past Danny's defense and see if it holds.
I thought table 3 seemed to hold pucks the best, or even Table 5, compared to Table 1.
|
|
|
|
| Pedro Otero
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 269
|
| I dont remember the numbers, but IMO the best was the one where i played Ehab and Colin, and the worst where i played Chris aston.
|
|
|
| goran
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 428
|
Pedro Otero said: | I dont remember the numbers, but IMO the best was the one where i played Ehab and Colin, and the worst where i played Chris aston. |
That was table 3, I agree it played the best.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 690
|
Q said:
I would agree with Davis' assessment and not relate it just to the mallet. Pucks sometimes wouldn't even make it to the first rail or as Davis said straight shots would fly. Billy's method of comparing videos will be the indication/metric to show this and I will try to get those up ASAP for that purpose. I think we will see at least a 2x increase for same players and the rate of pucks leaving the table and this method doesn't take into account players taking a bit of power off of their shot in order to try and adjust or the double sided taped pucks used by most of the matches. And having played on both tables (matte and glossy) a lot in Naperville, I think it is consistent between the finishes. Sounds like the airflow could be cut back to try and remedy? |
The BZ-owned tables in Naperville have glossed-up surfaces and some dirt on the rails. You guys practiced there the week before the tournament. I thought you said the banks and straights were holding. Was that not the case? Trying to determine if the surface makes a difference (as well as rails).
said:
|
|
|
|
| Q
- 28 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 497
|
| I do not recall saying that. What I remember is... Before setting up the venue, I did think that 7 & 8 would have held better than the brand new table surfaces when we were setting up and debated bringing them down into the pit on Wednesday or Thursday. (it was debated and the opposition to moving the tables was that the surface shouldn't require breaking in, the replacement rails were more broken in, and the extra work of taking apart the overhead units on 7& 8 would only happen if tables 1-5 were unplayable) IMO, on average, the tables down in the pit (1-5) played close to the same as those that belonged to the BZ (7 and 8). I did not try 6 at all.
|
|
|
|
| tableman
- 29 Oct 2013
Total Posts: 690
|
One other difference between my tables and newer Dynamos that I didn't mention: the Dynamos built in the last 10+ years or so don't have an air inlet opening for the blower, unlike older Dynamos and Brunswicks. My Gold Standard tables are like Brunswicks and old Dynamos: they have an opening beneath the blower for the air to come in, with an air filter. Look underneath a newer Dynamo table and you'll see there's a solid door under the blower. So how is the air supposed to enter the blower? Beats me, but enough air seems to come in through cracks and openings in the cabinet that the Dynamos still seem to work.
So one easy experiment I could do would be to block off the air inlet on a Gold Standard table with a piece of wood and see what the result is with respect to pucks holding the table.
|
First |
1 | 2 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / 2013 Nationals: My review
|
|
