overshot the puck brands

PUZZLE LINKS: JPZ Download | Online Solver Bonus Tuesday puzzle for you, and it’s a guest acrostic by Twitch streamer extraordinaire and all-around great guy JibbyMAX! Jibby, what do you have to say? Hi everyone! I’m very excited to present my second ever acrostic [ed note: check out the first one here!]. I was inspired...

The Mylec Floor Hockey Puckis perfect for the indoor or outdoor hockey player. This lightweight puck is softer than the traditional roller hockey puck making it safer for youngsters as well as surrounding walls, vehicles, and etc. This Mylec puck can be used for floor hockey or roller hockey while the bright florescent color of the puck makes it easy to see when playing or when looking for a puck that overshot the net. The other advantage is that that this floor hockey puck won"t leave puck marks like a traditional roller or ice hockey puck would.Weight:2.0 oz

So you’ve got your shuffleboard table, and now it’s time to get your hands on a quality set of pucks (woohoo!). You can’t just go out and buy any old set, though. Like shuffleboard tables, puck quality varies depending on the manufacturer, so this post will help you understand which puck is right for your table. We want you to be able to enjoy the game to its full extent!

The best shuffleboard weightsare the right size for your table and made from heavy-chrome steel with removable plastic caps. These will last for years. But some less expensive models could work too.

We studied the best shuffleboard pucks on the market and analyzed each in detail to give you the necessary information to make a buying decision. We have also created a buyer’s guide that specifies the features you should seek in your pucks.

High-quality pucks are built to better standards; they are more durable, have replaceable parts, and are less likely to get stuck on wax. This means they both last longer and are more functional, which makes them more enjoyable to use.

Recreational pucks are ideal for players who are new to the game and lack the skill to use larger pucks. They are also more suitable for the smaller shuffleboard tables that you likely have.

As with all things, there is a sweet spot for shuffleboard weights. Too light, you’ll constantly be overshooting, and your opponents will easily knock your pucks around. Yet too heavy may make the shuffleboard pucks harder to control.

According to the shuffleboard rules dictated by the Shuffleboard Federation, regulation-sized pucks must be within the 310 g-355 g range to be eligible for tournament play.

Nearly all shuffleboard table pucks sell in eight quantities, with four going to each team — enough for matches. But you may come across pucks that don’t come sold in eight quantities.

Beveled edge pucks are often superior to flat-bottom pucks. This is because they don’t cause the wax to accumulate as they travel down the length of the table. Instead, they smoothly glide over the shuffle wax. However, flat-bottom pucks often behave rather differently.

Due to their sharp bottom edges, they do not smoothly glide over wax. Instead, they plow through the wax, leaving a trail of wax devastation in their wake, which requires smoothing.

While shuffleboard puck tops are not particularly prone to damage, they can show signs of serious wear if used regularly or mistreated. When this point comes, you may feel the need to replace your shuffleboard pucks.

However, if you have selected a model with removable screw caps, you need not buy another set. Instead, simply unscrew the plastic cap and replace it with a new one.

Colors give you a clear indication of the field of play and which team is winning. They must be distinguishable. The most common colors you find among pucks are red and blue, but many more colors are available.

While having additional features with your purchase is a big selling point, it’s no good if it comes at the cost of the quality of the tabletop shuffleboard pucks. Here are a few extras to look out for:

Storage case: A case helps protect your pucks from moisture and excessive wear. It is also a means of carrying your pucks and helps make you look like a seasoned player!

Shuffleboard wax: You can never have enough shuffleboard wax, and select pucks come with a can or two. It is a great addition to any shuffleboard puck set.

If you are after a set of regulation-sized table shuffleboard pucks, you won’t get any better than these pucks by American. They fall within the regulation weight of 310 g-355 g and are made from heavy chrome-plated steel. This ensures they have the resilience to last for many years, even with harsh impacts.

The plastic-topped caps are also easy to screw off and replaceable, which is a big advantage. If they show signs of serious wear, you need only replace them rather than the whole puck itself.

If quality is your only concern, the Zieglerworld pucks are the ones for you. They are the most expensive pucks on this list, but with this price comes superior quality. Besides being beveled and well-weighted, the screw caps are replaceable. This is a sure-fire sign they are premium pucks as cheaper models are snapped on or glued on, which means you can’t easily replace them.

There are also plenty of colors to choose from. So if you want to show a bit of flair on the table with your kit, these pucks will surely achieve that. Besides the gold listing pictured above, there are 21 other colors you can choose from.

If money is tight and you want inexpensive shuffleboard pucks, we recommend this set by TORPSPORTS. They are less than half of the cost of the American brand and are fairly close in quality. They are also made from heavy chrome-plated steeland have replaceable screw caps,which are both very sought-after features.

Again, this set comes with no accessories, which is a bit of a shame. And remember, these pucks are recreational size, not tournament size, so ideally, they are best used on tables that are around 15ft or less. That being said, they are very high-quality for cheap shuffleboard pucks, so we heavily endorse them.

Up next is the YDDS shuffleboard puck set, another regulation-size bundle. While these pucks are undoubtedly of high quality having chrome-plated steel like the rest, their greatest standout feature is the accompanying extras.

A mini dustpan, brush, and two 14 oz cans of shuffleboard wax are included with the pucks. While the dustpan and brush are clearly inexpensive, the wax is worth a fair sum of money, so you’re getting a great bang for your buck when you purchase this bundle.

We also like that you can purchase a recreational-sized set, perfect for players with smaller shuffleboard tables. Both versions havemedium and high-speed pucks for you to choose from.

Yet unlike our top budget pick — the TORPSPORT set, these pucks are regulation-size, making them a better choice for longer tables. They are also a little brighterthan others, making it easier to distinguish teams. Although we suspect it shouldn’t be too difficult to tell colors apart anyway.

However, the plastic caps appear lower quality than we like and do not seem removable. We also would rather the shuffleboard pucks have beveled edges. Without this, the pucks snowplow the wax leaving wax streaks that no one wants. We recommend going for one of the more expensive sets if you have the money to spend.

The Hathaway shuffleboard puck set is the only set on this list to come with a carry case, so they possess a distinct advantage in this department. As for the pucks themselves, we find they are of decent quality. The edges are beveled, and the plastic caps provide good grip when you throw them.

They list the pucks as regulation-size, which is 2-5/16 inches, when in fact, they are 2-1/8 inches which is recreational size. This is a pretty big oversight on their part but doesn’t affect the actual quality of the pucks themselves. Make sure to consider this set only if you have a small shuffleboard table.

We hope you found this guide useful and learned what you should look out for when shopping around for shuffleboard pucks. In our opinion, the best shuffleboard pucks right now are those by thebrand. They ever-so-slightly edge out Zieglerworld’s pucks simply because they are a little bit cheaper, even though they’re both expensive models.

So if you have the money to spend, those are the pucks that we recommend. However, if you are looking for a more affordable option, we think the TORPSPORT pucks are probably your best choice. That is provided you have a small shuffleboard table. If you are using a full-size table, it is best to go for the Billiard Evolution pucks instead.

There are two shuffleboard puck sizes: 2-1/8 inch and 2-5/16 inch. The smaller 2-1/8 inch pucks suit recreational players who play on smaller shuffleboard tables.

On the other hand, the larger 2-5/16 inch pucks are for skilled players who play on the largest shuffleboard tables. This size is standard and meets tournament regulations.

Sellers rarely list the height of shuffleboard pucks, given that the diameter is the property that changes rather than height. Most pucks measure around 24 mm tall.

This depends on what kind of player you are. If you have a tendency to overshoot your pucks, a lighter set is best for you. Conversely, if you often come up short, invest in a heavier set instead. Just remember that your pucks need to be 310g to 355g range if you want to compete.

The slowest shuffleboard wax you can buy is Sun-Glo Speed 7 wax. Each type of shuffleboard wax has a rating from 1 to 7, with 7 being the slowest wax you can buy. Slow shuffleboard wax is great for smaller tables.

“Sand” is another term for shuffleboard wax. It helps pucks travel faster down the table by acting as a lubricant that minimizes friction. This makes gameplay smoother and far more enjoyable.

Unlike shuffleboard tables, shuffleboard pucks require very little maintenance. To clean your pucks, wipe them down with a clean cloth to remove any dirt or wax that they may have picked up.

No, shuffleboard pucks vary in many characteristics such as size, weight, and durability. Therefore, you should take your time when researching to ensure you select high-quality pucks.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.

The Innovator’s Dilemma gets more of the headlines, but the follow-up book by Clayton Christensen, The Innovator’s Solution, is a far more useful piece of work. The Innovator’s Solution starts out by describing the ‘dilemma’, and in one chapter removes the need to even read the original work. It then proceeds to offer an array of approaches to handling disruptive innovation in large organizations. In the following post, we’ll look at eight of the valuable principles Christensen highlights. For a summary of Christensen"s disruptive solution in innovation theory, seeprevious post here.

A sustaining innovation is one that improves the product for existing customers, giving them better features, better performance, more options, and so on. Sustaining innovation is the most common and it enables companies to take a product from being not-good-enough in early market stages to being more-than-good-enough in later stages.

If you enter a market and try to compete with an incumbent, you should not do it with a sustaining solution. Incumbent organizations are the ones with the resources, the customer base, and - crucially - the motivation to fight any threat from a new competitor. In almost all cases, an incumbent will win if they are threatened by a sustaining technology. They will simply do more of what they’re good at, serving their customers with product improvements.

The solution is to enter the market from below. Create a product that is not as good as the incumbents", but is cheaper, easier or more convenient. It’s important to begin with targeting a lower profit margin. Incumbents would rather let a low margin business go and concentrate on high margin growth (flee, not fight).

“That is why shaping a business idea into a disruption is an effective strategy for beating an established competitor. Disruption works because it is much easier to beat competitors when they are motivated to flee rather than fight.”

According to Christensen, most attempts to launch new products fail, with over 60% of all new product development efforts never even reaching the market. Of the remaining ones that do make it, 40% fail to make an impact and are withdrawn. Three-quarters of all the money spent to bring new products to market is wasted.

Marketers must take some of the blame, due to their market segmentation approach of looking at customers according to product type, price point, demographics, and psychographics. These are attribute-based categorizations of products and customers, but marketers must offer a circumstance-based approach: what is the circumstance in which a customer needs a product, which causes them to buy it? This is the jobs-to-be-done theory.

"Companies that target their products at the circumstances in which customers find themselves, rather than at the customers themselves, are those that can launch predictably successful products. Put another way, the critical unit of analysis is the circumstance and not the customer."

What should we do in-house and what should we outsource? The common answer to this question in business theory is that you should consider what your core competencies are and keep those in-house, outsource the rest. It’s a very prevalent idea, but the consequences of categorizing this way can be severe.

In the early 1980s, IBM made the decision to stick to its core competencies of assembling and marketing computers then outsourced the microprocessor to Intel and the operating system to Microsoft. At the time, the business press praised the decision highly, particularly because it dramatically reduced the cost and time for development. IBM however, inadvertently put into business two companies who went on to capture the majority of the profits in the industry.

The problem is that what you might deem a core-competence today, may not be important to the customer in the future. Instead of looking inward at what we are good at, we should be looking outward at the trajectory the customer is on and asking "what will they need in the future"?

Christensen likens this to Wayne Gretzky"s notion of "skating not to where the puck presently is, but to skate to where it is going to be’". Companies must focus on what jobs the customer is trying to get done and therefore, what skills they must master to support those jobs. What improvements will the customer seek in the future and what skills we you need to fulfill those?

"Core competence, as it is used by many managers, is a dangerously inward-looking notion. Competitiveness is far more about doing what customers value than doing what you think you’re good at. And staying competitive as the basis for competition shifts necessarily requires a willingness and ability to learn new things rather than clinging hopefully to the sources of past glory."

We need a theory that helps us understand when activities will become core or peripheral. Christensen’s theory for this begins by looking at product architecture. In the early stages of the market development, products are generally not-good-enough for customer needs. The companies most likely to succeed in this scenario are those who have integrated and proprietary architecture. These companies own and build all of the parts of the product themselves, providing the engineers with the flexibility needed to make the product absolutely right for the customer needs.

Over time, continuous product improvements eventually take the product to where it overshoots the needs of the market. When functionality and reliability is met in this way, customers then redefine what is now the basis for competition in the market. It shifts to price, speed, convenience, and customization. In this scenario, the best architecture is no longer proprietary, but modular.

Modular product architectures rely on standards so that different companies can produce separate modular parts of the overall system and each module can plug and play together. Modular means companies can introduce products faster and the overall cost for the customer is lower, but it means less freedom for engineers. Thus, when products become more-than-good-enough for customers, it is best to have a modular-based product architecture.

An industry is always in a state of flux and never completely one or the other. The trick for senior managers is to build up the instinct for where the market is moving and to move towards it.

"Managers of industry-leading businesses need to watch vigilantly in the right places to spot these trends as they begin because the processes of commoditization and de-commoditization both begin at the periphery, not the core."

What should the strategy be for launching a new-growth business? This is a question every leader will ask, but an even more important question can be missed altogether: what is the process we will use to formulate the strategy? Because innovative ideas are often nebulous, in need of shaping and transforming, the question of how to define strategy becomes important.

There are two fundamentally different processes for strategy formation: deliberate and emergent. Deliberate is common. It is analytical, rigorous, and formulated after a deep review of factors like market segment sizing, customer needs, competition, projected returns and so on. Deliberate strategies are the appropriate way for organizing action if three conditions are met:

If the organization is required to take collective action, then it must also make as much sense as possible to every employee, from their perspective and context.

In reality, meeting all three of those is unlikely. The emergent strategy process assumes that you cannot and that the strategy will and must adapt from the original plan.

Emergent strategy is the cumulative effect of all the day-to-day decisions made to invest and prioritize resources. These decisions are made from middle management and at the individual employee level. You can tell what a company’s strategy is by looking at what comes out of the resource allocation process and not what goes into it. This scenario should dominate when the future is hard to forecast and it is not yet clear which direction the business should take.

Intel originally made DRAM chips, but in the 70s they serendipitously invented the microprocessor. As Japanese manufacturers began to assert pressure on Intel in the DRAM business, profit margins on microprocessors started to look attractive, which in turn pulled more and more resources to help drive their production, but only in an ad-hoc incremental fashion. When Intel had their financial crisis in 1984, it became clear that DRAM’s were no longer supporting the business, and in fact, Intel had morphed into a microprocessor company. At that point Gordon Moore and Andy Grove switched into deliberate strategy mode, shifting resources in a deliberate fashion to support a microprocessor-oriented future.

"A viable strategic direction had to coalesce from the emergent side of the process because nobody could foresee clearly enough the future of microprocessor-based desktop computers. But once the winning strategy became apparent, it was just as critical to Intel’s ultimate success that the senior management then seized control of the resource allocation process and deliberately drove the strategy from the top."

Appointing people to run a new-growth business normally involves looking for people with the "right stuff" and a string of previous successes, assuming that more success will be in store. With new-growth businesses, however, Christensen believes that at least half of the cases he has examined failed because the wrong people had been chosen to lead it.

As so often in The Innovator"s Solution, the problem of miscategorization appears. What looks to be the "right stuff", is actually not the stuff needed for the particular circumstance of disruptive new-growth businesses.

Professor Morgan McCall influences Christensen’s thinking here. McCall describes how management skills and a person"s developed intuition come from the previous experiences in their career. Their ability to succeed in a new assignment is thus dependent upon what kind of experiences they’ve had and how they match to the new assignment. Consider a business unit as a "school", and the problems faced while working there as the "curriculum" that was offered.

Managers who have progressed through stable business units will have developed key skills for that scenario: operational management, process improvement, cost-controlling, and so on. But even the best of those may struggle when the scenario is to run a new-growth business, where the skills needed are radically different.

“It is not as important that managers have succeeded with the problems as it is for them to have wrestled with it and developed the skills and intuition for how to meet the challenge successfully the next time around … Failure and bouncing back from failure can be critical courses in the school of experience.”

The challenge for funding a disruptive innovation is that the market size is by definition small so the returns also look small. This is because disruptive innovations must start at the low-end of the market and work their way up, eventually disrupting the incumbents. In this scenario, there is good money and there is bad money.

Money invested by a company into new-growth initiatives is good money, as long as the core of the business is healthy. However, if that situation changes and the core business is under pressure to perform, the good money turns to bad money. The pipeline for growth now becomes increasingly vital and new-growth initiatives must now grow very big, very fast. This pressure prevents the innovators from taking the time to iterate over their strategy" to find and grow the disruptive innovation.

This problem occurs in almost every company. A study cited by Christensen, calledStall Points, highlights that from 172 companies that spent time on the Fortune 50 largest companies list, 95% saw their growth stall to rates at or below the GNP growth rate. Only 4% from that list of companies were able to reignite their growth again to even a rate of 1% above GNP. When growth stalls, companies become impatient for their investments to show growth, which creates an impossible environment for innovation to succeed.

Launch new-growth businesses regularly, when the core business is in healthy shape. When financial results signal the need to do it, it is probably too late.

As an organization grows, continue to divide up business units so that each unit can launch new ventures and be patient for growth, as they are small enough to benefit from small opportunities (disruptive innovations will start out small).

Minimize the use of profit from the core business to subsidize losses in the new-growth ventures. Be impatient for profit and patient for growth. If a venture is profitable, it remains likely to continue even when the core business is struggling.

“...financial outcomes of the most recent period actually reflect the results of investments that were made years earlier to improve processes and to create new products and businesses. Financial results measure how healthy the business was, not how healthy the business is. Financial results are a particularly bad tool to manage disruption, because moving up-market feels good financially, as we have noted previously.”

Christensen acknowledges that there are no examples of a company handling disruptive innovation recurrently, but he does believe it is possible if the right rhythmic process is put in place. There are four critical aspects:

1. Start before you need to.The best time to invest in growth is when the company is growing. It can take five years for a single initiative to fully develop. So budget not for the capital investment, but rather for the sheer number of new-growth businesses to launch each year. Christensen does not believe this is like a corporate venture fund because venture funds make blind bets hoping one will pay off big. A new-growth business is significantly more predictable, using the theories described in this book to shape ideas properly.

2. Appoint senior executive to shepherd ideas and resource allocation.The CEO and other executives must be coached in disruptive innovation so that they have the confidence to exempt a venture from established financial measurements. They must also be able to spot the difference between a disruptive and a sustaining innovation.

3. Create a team and a process for shaping ideas.A lack of good ideas is rarely a problem for companies. The problem is that they frequently lose their disruptive potential in the shaping process because of the way ideas must be presented to win funding. A team should be created to collect disruptive innovation ideas and mold those ideas into propositions which fit the theories of disruptive innovation. The team must know these theories deeply, they must stick together, and they must frequently work together on testing the theories on ideas.

4. Train the troops.Sales, marketing, and engineering, in particular, must be trained to spot disruptive ideas because these individuals are most likely to encounter them and see the opportunities. They need to know what kind of ideas they can channel into the sustaining route and the disruptive route.

“Launching a single successful disruptive business can create years of profitable growth for a company, as GE Capital did for its parent during the years when Jack Welch was at its helm. Disruption blessed Johnson & Johnson’s medical devices and diagnostics group, as we noted in Chapter 9. Hewlett-Packard’s disruptive ink-jet printer is now the profit driver of the entire corporation. If it feels so good to disrupt once, why not do it again and again?”

The Innovator"s Solution is one of those books that even in 2016 is a required reading for innovation managers. We"ve only provided a brief summary and superficially touched on the insights from it here. The goal of the book is not really to provide exact answers, but more to provide theory which can develop a better intuition for what disruptive innovation is, and how best to handle it.

One of the things that scare people off is when their original (that come with the table) air hockey pucks are broke or can’t slide as smoothly as they used to.

However, with the right guiding (meaning this guide that you’re reading now