Dave - I've got a 9' Diamond Pro Am with Pro Cut pockets.
I measured/calculated the following:
PMS 4.50"
PTS 3.75"
PMTD 0.75"
PSD 1.75"
TDF = 1.0 x 1.05 x 1.03 x 1.0 = 1.0815
Which is in the "tough" range... which I feel is appropriate.
Mine is the original "Red Diamond" version so I have the "BOINGY" cushions, which increases the table's "toughness" in my opinion to somewhere between tough and very tough.
I'm going to have my rails modified to the "Blue Diamond" version in the next month or thereabouts.
Dave - I've got a 9' Diamond Pro Am with Pro Cut pockets.
I measured/calculated the following:
PMS 4.50"
PTS 3.75"
PMTD 0.75"
PSD 1.75"
TDF = 1.0 x 1.05 x 1.03 x 1.0 = 1.0815
Which is in the "tough" range... which I feel is appropriate.
Mine is the original "Red Diamond" version so I have the "BOINGY" cushions, which increases the table's "toughness" in my opinion to somewhere between tough and very tough.
I'm going to have my rails modified to the "Blue Diamond" version in the next month or thereabouts.
With the new numbers, this is what I get for your table now:
TSF: 8'+=0.95, PSF: 5"=0.95, PAF: 1"=1.25, PLF: 1 7/8"=1.05
TDF = 0.95 x 0.95 x 1.25 x 1.05 = 1.18
That would imply that your table is about 15-20% more difficult than a standard-spec 9' table. Does that sound reasonable? It sounds a bit high to me. Maybe I need to not allow the PAF and PLF to be so high if the PSF is less than 1. What do or others you think?
Thanks,
Dave
PS: I was guessing a little on your shelf depth because you didn't provide it directly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Several people have commented on the importance of cloth and ball conditions, cushion conditions, facing properties, humidity, etc.... I certainly agree with the pocket facings, cloth and also the rail speed.
Thank you for posting your table info and TDF calculation. I'm glad the result agrees with your perception.Dave - I've got a 9' Diamond Pro Am with Pro Cut pockets.
I measured/calculated the following:
PMS 4.50"
PTS 3.75"
PMTD 0.75"
PSD 1.75"
TDF = 1.0 x 1.05 x 1.03 x 1.0 = 1.0815
Which is in the "tough" range... which I feel is appropriate.
Mine is the original "Red Diamond" version so I have the "BOINGY" cushions, which increases the table's "toughness" in my opinion to somewhere between tough and very tough.
I'm going to have my rails modified to the "Blue Diamond" version in the next month or thereabouts.
Thanks for the input.i have this table as well-its in a studio in Vegas(i have since changed the rails, but it was a 07 red lable factory Diamond with the boingy rails). It is by the numbers we came up with today very close to what i posted earlier, however IMO its a much easier table than the GC with 3.99" openings. Much easier to run balls on this Diamond.
not a knock on Cigar's table, i love it!! just a observation cause i'm VERY familiar with it, i played 2+ years on mine. Then we changed the rails.
Please list the values for the two tables you are comparing and let's talk about how to change the factors to have them be more appropriate. It sounds like you are suggesting that the pocket shelf factor should be given more weight on the deep side.I can't give much credibity to your calculations. A 4" pocketed shallow shelf table plays about the same as a Gold Crown? Surely you jest.
Here's the current comparison of your table with the TDF "standard, based on the updated numbers:I'd find it hard to believe that my table plays 15-20% harder in general than a standard Diamond table. I play on both, and they are pretty close in difficulty IMO.
Those are all good points, but I don't think we should attempt to include things like "style of play" or "player ability level" in the table difficulty factor. Again, the purpose of the TDF is just to provide a general and approximate measure of comparison based strictly on the table and pocket geometry.Both have their own unique set of challenges, and then it also depends heavily on your general style of play and the types of games you prefer to play.
Games like 14.1 are real nice to play on my table because most shots are hit softer and more straight into the lower corner pockets. Long, hard shots down the long rails are something I rarely do in 14.1. There usually is a better shot. In rotation games, there is no better shot to choose. You have to hit the next ball in order, and often have to hit it hard enough to get the CB back to the other end of the table for the next shot. There are also lots more combos and carom shots in 14.1, and the wider pocket openings are more forgiving of small miscalculations in these multi-ball shots. All told, I'd hazard a guess that a great 14.1 player like Schmidt or Harriman might actually find my table 15-20% easier for 14.1 than a standard Diamond with pro-cut pockets.
I agree that it would be better to measure the angle directly, but I didn't want to assume that a typical pool player will own an angle-measuring device (e.g., protractor) and be able to use it accurately. Most cushions are very close to 2" across and any difference won't have that big of an effect since the pocket-angle-factor is somewhat qualitative already (and apparently still needs some tweaking).One other question that you or someone else might answer. Is the combined thickness of the cushion and the sub-rail to which it is attached a standard measurement? Mine are exactly 2" across, from the nose to the point where the feather cloth wraps around the feather strip. Anything that deviates from this size would have different pocket facing angles, even though the measurements at the pocket opening and the back of the throat are the same. I think it may be more accurate to specify the actual angles themselves. I measured mine very carefully using a small sliding bevel and a protractor. They are 144º, which is 3º more open than Diamond uses. Hit the ball hard down my rails and it better be 100% on or it will rattle out every time.
I don't know. I don't have one handy. Could someone post these if they plan to be near one soon?Dave - Out of curiosity, what are the measurements/calcs/factors of a standard 9' Gold Crown?
I based the TDF=1 "standard" on the centers of the ranges of the WPA specs.Is that your "standard" of a table having a TDF of 1... which is in the center of the "average" range?
Good question.Most of us are very familiar with a standard GC so that's why I asked the question.
I just remembered that we have some Gold Crowns on the BU graduates list. Here's an example from 12squared:I don't know. I don't have one handy. Could someone post these if they plan to be near one soon?Dave - Out of curiosity, what are the measurements/calcs/factors of a standard 9' Gold Crown?
Thanks for the data and input. I've added you to the list (see below). The current TDF system rates your table as 20% more difficult than the "standard" (which is more difficult than a GC). Could you send me measurements for a Diamond so I can add it to the list?My table is a Brunswick set up by Ernesto Dominguez with custom rails. Many tables set up by Ernesto are similar. 9' Table, 4" pocket opening, 3 3/4" at the back of the pocket, 7/8" shelf. Very similar to Fat Boy's specs.
In my opinion, the pocket opening size is a lot more important in table difficuly for most shots than cut angle or depth of shelf. The reason is the pocket opening requires a greater degree of accuracy and the pockets are far more difficult to cheat. Cut angles and depth of shelf can be adjusted to by shooting softly on rail shots.
I would say my table plays 25% more difficult than a Diamond. A standard Diamond seem like buckets to me. I adjust to the angle and deeper shelf by shooting rail shots a little softer.
Thank you for your kind and encouraging feedback. I appreciate it.Dr. Dave.
Thank you for everything you do for billiards knowledge, and thank you for making all of that knowledge open and freely available for all to see and learn from. I have spent countless hours studying your work and then moving it to the table for real world exercise and practice.
...
Dr. Dave, again I want to thank you for all you do for this wonderful sport, and commend you for sharing it with all of man kind open and freely. I look forward to all of your future discoveries and shared knowledge.
I get the following:I have recently re-worked my table (new rubber, cloth and closed my buckets down a 1/2" to 4.5" See the link in my signature if interested). The table is not difficult but plays fair and true for it's limited size. Here are the results of my table which I believe to be spot-on to what I feel the playability factor of it is.
Here are the measurements I have.
pocket mouth = 4.5"
back of throat = 3.75"
Shelf depth = 1.25"
If I did things correctly, these are the results I come up with.
Connelly Kayenta 8ft table.
TSF = .90
PSF = 1.05
PAF = 1.08
PLF = .98
______________
TDF = 1.000188