I briefly looked at the first article. From that I get the idea that you may be making the same error as others: You're saying the pocket is LARGER--but it's larger, when viewed from the NARROWED pocket that you see from down the rail.
When I was talking about a "4-5" inch pocket, of course what I was talking about is a 4-5 in pocketing WINDOW. What that means exactly is the WIDTH of an imaginary line AT the distance/location of the pocket (i.e., the distance of the shot) which is PERPENDICULAR to the line that the OB travels to get to the pocket, which, if the edge of any approaching ball is within that line, the ball will fall.
So, to visualize that width, all one needs to do is extend the OB trajectory (and if the cushion is in the way, imagining it magically passing through) until it gets to the "pocket area" and measure from the opposite pocket cushion point, to where the edge of the OB WOULD BE (from the imaginary OB-pocket line). In the few video examples given that I responded to, that edge (each time, coincidentally) seemed to be almost exactly at a place where the back of the rubber rail meets the wooden part of the siderails. By my eye alone, the relevant distance (length from the opposite cushion point of the pocket, to the point where the rubber meets the wood--drawn at an angle perpendicular to the path of the ball) looks to be, ta-dah!, pretty much identical to the "standard width" of the mouth of a corner pocket, as seen from a straight-into-the-mouth direction.
Now, I'm NOT trying to make any extraordinary claims here. As you point out at the start in your article--pockets are complicated, and they vary between tables. But it DOES APPEAR ROUGHLY VALID that the "effective width**" of a pocket is about the measured width, taken in the normal way.
I was SURPRISED by the video examples given, then when imagining the path of the ball as if it had magically passed through the rail rather than bouncing off, that the shot really wasn't AS WIDE AS PEOPLE MIGHT GENERALLY THINK; that in all three cases I discussed, the outside edge of the ball seemed to be pointing to about the SAME SPOT in each case--where the rubber meets the wood, at the pocket.
This is moderately interesting to me, and I'm interested in what you or Bob Jewett (especially, since it was his information that I stole) have to say about this.
But again, what I'm interested in is the EFFECTIVE POCKET WIDTH as determined by the width, at the distance of the pocket, that separates the outside edges of the "makeable" zone--determined by the edges of balls that just go. And that includes the edges of balls that hit the cushion, IF, their trajectories are extended in such a manner to show where they WOULD HAVE GONE if the rail hadn't obstructed them and changed their path.
So far, I haven't seen any info that suggests Bob Jewett's approximation isn't quite practical and, roughly, accurate.
**EDIT: And by that I mean the effective width on ANY ONE SHOT. Of course, if you ADD TOGETHER all possible shots (like those coming down the short rail PLUS those coming down the long rail), etc., well, sure...you can come up with a TEN INCH pocket, I suppose. The only thing that matters is what the effective pocket width is when you're trying to make a shot. By my estimation (and I guess by Bob Jewett's) it looks to be approximately the "actual" width that one would measure across the open jaws in the "standard" position--no matter from what angle you approach it. Of course, that's NOT true of the SIDE pockets; only the corner pockets.
ANOTHER EDIT: Furthermore, it's important to get back on track. My first post was meant to show the REQUIREMENTS of accuracy to be a good, or effective player. The figure of about a 4.5" pocket width fits that bill. It DOESN'T MATTER if SOMETIMES pockets can be more forgiving, when some other times (different shot angles) they AREN'T. To play well you have to be able to consistently make shots within a 4.5" pocket window WHEN THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE UP AGAINST. It's nice to get a break once in awhile, so one shot is easier to make in one pocket, at the same distance as another shot, but at a different pocket approach angle. But to be any kind of a decent player, you need to be able to make the shot at the more difficult angle of pocket approach (not down the rail) as well as the easier angles of approach (down the rail).
And ONE FINAL EDIT: Perhaps it's true that some "extra width" can be found on pockets from the rail with slow shots (but I don't claim to know that--AFAIK the jury's still out). Might it also be shown that under conditions of HIGHER speed the pocket size actually SHRINKS for near the rail shots? The more I think about this (and adding in the many often strategic and necessary difficult shots into the side) the more I think that, if anything, perhaps my tolerances should be TIGHTENED. In any case, when we watch pros plays, one of the most notable characteristics is how OFTEN they fire shots into the center of the visual pocket window (most nice to watch on shots that go down the rail and never touch it). Indeed, one way I personally judge a player's strength in watching him play for a few minutes, is how sloppy his pocketing is (and, of course, the flip side of that is that it's the first lesson in "sandbagging" learned by strong players who want to pick up some money!). Anyhow, the fact is that pros and other exceptionally strong players play at significantly TIGHTER TOLERANCES than those I list on my first post--since they are very often hitting center pocket. The tolerances I list are an attempt to show the range where shots can be made that APPROACH nearly missing. If one shot all shots randomly WITHIN the tolerances I show, and made all shots, he would still look quite sloppy--not at all like a really strong player--even though he might package racks nicely.
Last edited:
...
This thread is never gonna die, now!
:thumbup:
