This argument has been going on for years. Every time I play, I play on a double shimmed Diamond. It has four inch pockets. When I'm in stroke, I either run most of the rack or the whole rack, but I rarely put packages together. I'm not even a shortstop. The argument that pool is boring with tighter pockets is ridiculous. The better player will out-perform his opponent on tougher equipment. There may be less breaking and running out, but slopping balls is rare and aiming for the hole is critical. A few friends of mine who are seasoned players all agree that standard buckets are more of a hindrance to achieving top-speed than anything else. It's literally similar to playing on an over-sized bar table. If you think that pro-speed players will have difficulty playing on such equipment, you are sorely mistaken. Tougher equipment just builds a more solid player.
4 inch pockets are not terrible.
- Thread starter CRfromSC
- Start date
I read your post, and the first thing that comes to my mind is ... it's a shame that everyone thinks in terms of 9 ball. I know you're talking about pocket size, but you automatically relate it to 9 ball. I feel it depends. I think tight pockets takes away from the game of straight pool.
4 inch pockets are horrible I repeat horrible for 9 and 10 ball! You can't play flawless pool and you especially can't if it's muggy and humid. 4 inch pockets will take away your confidence and make your stroke tighten up.
I agree that the slop buckets takes away from the game also. The sweet spot is somewhere between 4.25 and 4.5 inch pockets.
You know what else takes away from the game besides 5 inch pockets... jjump cues!
I just became a big fan of yours. Johnnyt
Before I get flamed for this I would like to explain my situation. I don't have a pool hall in my area and the closest 9 foot table is about 1 1/2 hours away so I am not a regular player on a 9 foot table. I am, and have been stuck on 8 foot Valleys for the last 20 years so I am not that familiar with 9 foot tables. I do travel a lot and every chance I get I try and find a pool hall to go and see if I can even make a ball on a big table. I also just try and compare how much of a different game it is playing on a larger table and how I have to adjust on how I usually play position.
Now since I am not a regular player on a 9 foot table, I have to change how I normally would play a lot of shots and have to change the angles where I would like to leave the cue ball for position on the next ball. That is very difficult for me to change how my mind is looking at the pattern of the table and I do catch myself a lot thinking of how I would be playing position on a bar table.
Now, I did play on the tournament tables at Hardtimes last month for there 9 ball and one pocket tournament and I liked 4 inch pockets. Maybe it was because I was not used to playing on a 9' table and my mind didn't already have pre-determined patterns laid out and I had to really think about every shot no matter how easy it looked. I didn't come in the money in either tournament, but that is because I missed balls into those pockets. Not because the balls rattled or I got robbed by 4" pockets. It was because I would hit the rail before the pocket when I was cutting balls down the rails and the balls will not go if you do that, but if I was to hit the ball right, the balls fall. I would rather play on a table like that than play on a table with pockets that allow you to hit the rail prior to the pocket.
IMHO, 4" pockets are fine as long as they are done right, you just have to adjust your game to them.
Question, in an earlier post a member said 4" pockets for 14.1 wouldn't work that, I don't play 14.1 so I am curious why not?
Now since I am not a regular player on a 9 foot table, I have to change how I normally would play a lot of shots and have to change the angles where I would like to leave the cue ball for position on the next ball. That is very difficult for me to change how my mind is looking at the pattern of the table and I do catch myself a lot thinking of how I would be playing position on a bar table.
Now, I did play on the tournament tables at Hardtimes last month for there 9 ball and one pocket tournament and I liked 4 inch pockets. Maybe it was because I was not used to playing on a 9' table and my mind didn't already have pre-determined patterns laid out and I had to really think about every shot no matter how easy it looked. I didn't come in the money in either tournament, but that is because I missed balls into those pockets. Not because the balls rattled or I got robbed by 4" pockets. It was because I would hit the rail before the pocket when I was cutting balls down the rails and the balls will not go if you do that, but if I was to hit the ball right, the balls fall. I would rather play on a table like that than play on a table with pockets that allow you to hit the rail prior to the pocket.
IMHO, 4" pockets are fine as long as they are done right, you just have to adjust your game to them.
Question, in an earlier post a member said 4" pockets for 14.1 wouldn't work that, I don't play 14.1 so I am curious why not?
I dunno if I agree on the jump cues but that's a good point about the stroke tightening up. Basically when I no longer can say for sure if the ball is going in or not, I can't let out my stroke to move the CB and I play "cinch" shape. Then I'm even worse off for the next ball. Eventually all that worry about balls going in catches up to me and one of them doesn't fall.
edit: Hubby - the tighter the pockets, the shorter the runs are in 14.1. Just one of those things that is not only common sense, but proven over time... Mosconi's big one was said to be on pretty generous pockets (plus on an 8 footer). Schmidt has run multiple 400's on regular pockets but can't break 300 on a diamond (and most players will agree even near 300 is sort of a miracle).
It's not that the game would be unfair or unenjoyable... just shorter runs. Definitely less chance of anyone running 150-and-out. Funny difficult shots into the far corners come up all the time in straight pool. Rattling one of them is like the kiss of death. Not fun.
edit: Hubby - the tighter the pockets, the shorter the runs are in 14.1. Just one of those things that is not only common sense, but proven over time... Mosconi's big one was said to be on pretty generous pockets (plus on an 8 footer). Schmidt has run multiple 400's on regular pockets but can't break 300 on a diamond (and most players will agree even near 300 is sort of a miracle).
It's not that the game would be unfair or unenjoyable... just shorter runs. Definitely less chance of anyone running 150-and-out. Funny difficult shots into the far corners come up all the time in straight pool. Rattling one of them is like the kiss of death. Not fun.
Last edited:
Probably because people want to see runouts,,,by anyone. By the Earl Stricklands and Efrens to the minor A++ players of this world. Great players will adjust. And anything that seperates the men from the boys, requiring consummate sharpshooting and immaculate position play can only be good for the evolution of the game. The ease of the game as it stands today allows lesser players compete with their betters.
That's like bringing in the fences 40' so that everyone can hit homers.
I want to make an emotional post BUT I will simply state that Minnesota fats played on big 10 foot tables with tight pockets.... The game evolves as should its players!!!!! Jump cues tight pockets 9 foot tables we can all argue but the end result wont change anything.... Lots of respect for all of you but deal with the pro tours and their rules!!! Tight pockets and rules arguments need to be adjusted to not changed!!!
When you can go put a pro tour together then make the rules as you wish. Hopefully it works for you!!!
When you can go put a pro tour together then make the rules as you wish. Hopefully it works for you!!!
Pockets that tight are no good for straight pool. The reason is that to play proper 14.1 you have to be able to cheat the pockets. And the reason for this is because:
-Unlike games such as 9 Ball where you can use the rails and speed to get shape, in straight pool you are often playing position on your next ball without going to a rail. So you often can't use english off the rail to gain position, so you need to be able to use cut angle.
-Secondly, because of all the traffic, your position play often has to be very precise whereas in rotation games you can usually get away with playing to larger areas and be fine. A difference of a fraction of an inch can mean having no shot at all instead of the one you wanted. In 14.1 you often have to use the cut angle to help control the speed of the cue ball.
Since you must be precise on your shape so often and also frequently are not going to a rail (where you can use english off the rail to manipulate the path of the cue ball) you have to have some leeway so that you can use cut angle to play position. This is the way good straight pool is played and that's why 4" pockets are no good in that game. It requires pockets big enough so that you can play to a specific portion of the hole in order to manipulate the cut angle to get the right tangent line for shape or to control the speed of the cue ball (i.e. a fuller cut to limit cue ball travel and vice versa).
So in straight pool you often use cut angle to help control both the path of the cue ball as well as it's speed. This is the way good straight pool is played and it requires pockets big enough to allow you to do this. You don't need 5" pockets, but most people would agree that 4" just doesn't give you enough wiggle room for straight pool to be played correctly.
Hope this helps explain it.
Last edited:
There's one other point I forgot to mention. Pocket size, in and of itself, does not make it easier. It really depends on the game.
In rotation games where you are primarily using the rails to direct the cue ball, bigger pockets make for a larger margin of error and at some point make these games too easy.
In straight pool, because you so often need to cheat the pocket, you must hit a precise shot regardless of how big the pocket is. If you need to hit a 2 1/2" portion of the pocket to hold position for the next shot it doesn't matter if the pocket is 5" you still must be very precise. If you miss the 2 1/2" portion you are aiming for you have failed. If you miss on the short side you hit the point and miss the shot. If you miss on the wide side you make the ball but fail to get position and you have no next shot. In either event you will be taking a chair.
Obviously this is all relative. Certainly there are times in rotation games where you are not relying on the rails for position and need to cheat the pocket. So at some point the pockets can be too small to play these games correctly. Conversely, you do not need to cheat the pockets on every shot in 14.1 so at some point the pockets can be too big for this game. But the overall theory does hold true that straight pool does require larger pockets to be played properly.
In rotation games where you are primarily using the rails to direct the cue ball, bigger pockets make for a larger margin of error and at some point make these games too easy.
In straight pool, because you so often need to cheat the pocket, you must hit a precise shot regardless of how big the pocket is. If you need to hit a 2 1/2" portion of the pocket to hold position for the next shot it doesn't matter if the pocket is 5" you still must be very precise. If you miss the 2 1/2" portion you are aiming for you have failed. If you miss on the short side you hit the point and miss the shot. If you miss on the wide side you make the ball but fail to get position and you have no next shot. In either event you will be taking a chair.
Obviously this is all relative. Certainly there are times in rotation games where you are not relying on the rails for position and need to cheat the pocket. So at some point the pockets can be too small to play these games correctly. Conversely, you do not need to cheat the pockets on every shot in 14.1 so at some point the pockets can be too big for this game. But the overall theory does hold true that straight pool does require larger pockets to be played properly.
Last edited:
Then players like yourself should be world champions, and practice on snooker tables and run balls like eating Wheaties for breakfast in the mornings.
The fact is, there's no standard for the pockets on pool tables to date. Diamond is trying very hard to create that standard with "ProCut" pockets. If anyone feels like 4 1/2" corner pockets are to easy...then they should NEVER miss on them...but you STILL do....even after practicing on 4" pockets.
Every one of you that says that practicing on 4" pocket makes your game better...are not world champions, miss on 5" pockets, miss on 4 3/4" pockets...and miss on 4 1/2" pockets.
Truth of the matter, is that 4" pockets slow down the asswhooping you're getting by the better players, giving you that feeling that you had a chance to win....because he didn't leave any tennis shoe tread marks on your ass as he ran you over...and your game...on your 4" pockets!
Glen
Classic...
Run balls like eating wheaties for breakfast - you truly are one of a kind Glen.
Run balls like eating wheaties for breakfast - you truly are one of a kind Glen.
Where that analogy fails is that the fences have already started at X distance, they've been that way for years... but for some reason we're proposing moving them 40' OUT. I guess because a handful of monster players can knock 'em out of the park at that distance (even if 99.9% of the rest of the population, including some pros, cannot).
If easy pockets enable minor A++ players to compete on a level with Efren and Earl, why is it Efren and Earl keep rising to the top and the minor leaguers never have their name appear in the money? I don't mean over the long haul or in terms of yearly income, I just mean even within a single tournament? Show me a pro tournament where several top-level household names got upset by a shortstop (due to generous pockets or for any other reason).
There's more to this game than straight shooting. Tightening pockets rewards the straightest shooters, but that isn't necessarily the same as rewarding the best pool player.
IMHO, whatever pocket size someone chooses for their home table is fine...because it's their choice.
If ONLY my home was big enough for a table...:sorry: If it was, I'd specify 4 1/2" pockets...two balls wide sounds right to me...some room to cheat the pocket, yet not buckets. Take pocket cheating away from the game, might as well install a snooker table & be done.
If ONLY my home was big enough for a table...:sorry: If it was, I'd specify 4 1/2" pockets...two balls wide sounds right to me...some room to cheat the pocket, yet not buckets. Take pocket cheating away from the game, might as well install a snooker table & be done.
I know the popular response is to 'let's agree to disagree' and that will probably be posted somewhere in this forum soon.
Seems like I remember this discussion in the late 80s and early 90s about 5 inch pockets and 4½ inch pockets... Diamond introduced the 4½ inch pockets around the same time they started using Simonis 860 cloth. A lot of PROs applauded the change and a lot of the regular pool players thought it was just way too tough.
Some pool rooms finally got the Diamond tables with the Pro Cut pockets and all the bangers complained about them being too difficult to play on and whined and whined.
4 inch pockets are difficult, no doubt, so were 5 inch pockets when we all started playing so long ago. We got finally got use to 5 inch pockets and the slow nappy cloth, when the Diamond 4½ inch Simonis was introduced in the late 80s.
There was a lot of whining back then also.
3 7/8 inch pockets are tight and 3¾ are even tighter. Does anyone remember practicing on a snooker table to be able to play better???
Seems like I remember this discussion in the late 80s and early 90s about 5 inch pockets and 4½ inch pockets... Diamond introduced the 4½ inch pockets around the same time they started using Simonis 860 cloth. A lot of PROs applauded the change and a lot of the regular pool players thought it was just way too tough.
Some pool rooms finally got the Diamond tables with the Pro Cut pockets and all the bangers complained about them being too difficult to play on and whined and whined.
4 inch pockets are difficult, no doubt, so were 5 inch pockets when we all started playing so long ago. We got finally got use to 5 inch pockets and the slow nappy cloth, when the Diamond 4½ inch Simonis was introduced in the late 80s.
There was a lot of whining back then also.
3 7/8 inch pockets are tight and 3¾ are even tighter. Does anyone remember practicing on a snooker table to be able to play better???
True, using the entire pocket for an entry point is referred to as 'cheating the pocket' I understand that and so do a lot of players.
How much you can cheat the pocket is in question...don't you agree?
the balls are 2¼ inches and there is plenty of room to enter the pocket that is 5 inches... and only 1 inch less to enter with 4 inch pockets. But there is still a 1¾ room or a little less than an inch on either side of the pocket to be able to 'CHEAT the Pocket'
Center does not change when you tighten pockets.. just the clearance.
Now we can discuss the issues of the different materials of shims and facings that tables use for the pockets that can make event 4½ inch pockets play tighter than 4 inch pockets.
Also the angles used setting up the pocket width. These angles and really make a pocket play tight or loose.
you're thinking from straight on....
Shooting from straight on to the pocket 1" from 5"s doesnt make a big difference, but from along the rail it changes from 20% difference to like 45% of available pocket. so the angle to the pocket will drastically change the increased degree of difficulty.
You'll notice that the majority of missed shots by pro caliber players on tighter tables are harder hit shots from a shallow angle relative to the rail.
It's also the most missed shot on the deep shelf pockets of a diamond.
Jaden
Shooting from straight on to the pocket 1" from 5"s doesnt make a big difference, but from along the rail it changes from 20% difference to like 45% of available pocket. so the angle to the pocket will drastically change the increased degree of difficulty.
You'll notice that the majority of missed shots by pro caliber players on tighter tables are harder hit shots from a shallow angle relative to the rail.
It's also the most missed shot on the deep shelf pockets of a diamond.
Jaden
Thanks,
I was replying to "pwd72s" comments when he was referring to 'cheating the pockets'.
Straight on shots... yes.. change that and the percentages go down. 14.1 compared to the power shots of the 9 and 10 ball pro shooters, are quite different when mentioning 'cheating the pockets'. If you played a lot of 14.1 at an experienced level, you would understand.
I was replying to "pwd72s" comments when he was referring to 'cheating the pockets'.
Straight on shots... yes.. change that and the percentages go down. 14.1 compared to the power shots of the 9 and 10 ball pro shooters, are quite different when mentioning 'cheating the pockets'. If you played a lot of 14.1 at an experienced level, you would understand.
Very well said. I don't care for 4" pockets and I don't enjoy playing on a table with that size pockets. 4.25 to 4.5" are perfect and they let you let your stroke out and not worry so much about hanging balls up unless your name is Efren Reyes........
James