Tight Pockets

[Island Drive]

On my am jog a very important aspect of our game came to mind, one that's not been discussed but should be as our rotation games seem to be evolving with every passing month.
As I look at the comparative, the PGA, it's very exciting to see Tom Watson, or Fred Couples be in the hunt, in either the British Open or the Masters at Augusta.
I think we and our spot also deserve this aspect of our game to be prevalant, as we all know Knowlege and experience, like in golf is VERY important.
If the pocket size for pro play is TOO small, the 40 yr old and the 50ish Efrens, their chances diminish greatly, the game itself looses an aspect that has GREAT value to us as players, too the public audience and historians alike.
Too small of pockets makes the game more for the younger players in their teens and twenties where eyesight and other factors are key elements of our game as we're ALWAYS dealing with infintesimal amounts when it comes to winning or losing a match.
I would like to see greats such as Mike Sigel be in the hunt, late in a pro event, but when certain factors like pocket size ''rear their head'' who loses the most?
When strategy is a KEY factor in our game, why make pocketing a difficult shot, with a small hole MORE important when knowlege, like Efren is JUST as important.

 

[realkingcobra]

On my am jog a very important aspect of our game came to mind, one that's not been discussed but should be as our rotation games seem to be evolving with every passing month.
As I look at the comparative, the PGA, it's very exciting to see Tom Watson, or Fred Couples be in the hunt, in either the British Open or the Masters at Augusta.
I think we and our spot also deserve this aspect of our game to be prevalant, as we all know Knowlege and experience, like in golf is VERY important.
If the pocket size for pro play is TOO small, the 40 yr old and the 50ish Efrens, their chances diminish greatly, the game itself looses an aspect that has GREAT value to us as players, too the public audience and historians alike.
Too small of pockets makes the game more for the younger players in their teens and twenties where eyesight and other factors are key elements of our game as we're ALWAYS dealing with infintesimal amounts when it comes to winning or losing a match.
I would like to see greats such as Mike Sigel be in the hunt, late in a pro event, but when certain factors like pocket size ''rear their head'' who loses the most?
When strategy is a KEY factor in our game, why make pocketing a difficult shot, with a small hole MORE important when knowlege, like Efren is JUST as important.

All the tournaments played on Diamond's, have 4 1/2" corner pockets & 5 1/16" side pockets, perceived as big pockets it seems by most here on AZ. So, what tight pockets are you talking about Efren has a disadvantage on against younger players? Here's something to think about also when talking about "tight" pockets that I bet most don't think about, yes, it may be harder to pocket a ball on tighter pockets, but in the same respect, isn't it also harder to scratch the cue ball as well, as it's the same size as the rest of the balls, isn't it?

Glen

 

[Brian in VA]

Oh sure, Glen, bring logic into the argument! :smile:

When I'm playing well, the table doesn't know how old I am.

Brian in VA

 

[Run the Century]

Glen

I dont care how tight the pockets are - I'll find a way to scratch.

 

[TATE]

On my am jog a very important aspect of our game came to mind, one that's not been discussed but should be as our rotation games seem to be evolving with every passing month.
As I look at the comparative, the PGA, it's very exciting to see Tom Watson, or Fred Couples be in the hunt, in either the British Open or the Masters at Augusta.
I think we and our spot also deserve this aspect of our game to be prevalant, as we all know Knowlege and experience, like in golf is VERY important.
If the pocket size for pro play is TOO small, the 40 yr old and the 50ish Efrens, their chances diminish greatly, the game itself looses an aspect that has GREAT value to us as players, too the public audience and historians alike.
Too small of pockets makes the game more for the younger players in their teens and twenties where eyesight and other factors are key elements of our game as we're ALWAYS dealing with infintesimal amounts when it comes to winning or losing a match.
I would like to see greats such as Mike Sigel be in the hunt, late in a pro event, but when certain factors like pocket size ''rear their head'' who loses the most?
When strategy is a KEY factor in our game, why make pocketing a difficult shot, with a small hole MORE important when knowlege, like Efren is JUST as important.

In a match between two opponents, tight pockets always favor the better player because more precision is needed. Loose pockets tend to make the outcome of the match less predictable, since less precision is required and subtle differences between two player's abiltiies tend to matter less.

It's kind of like golf. On a regular golf course, say 6400 yard par 72 with a 125 slope, a club pro and a touring pro might both shoot consistent 68's. Put them on a PGA course with fast greeens, 7000+ yards, tucked pins, huge, well placed bunkers, and grown out rough, the PGA pro might shoot 69 or 70, while the club pro is shooting 77. The reason is because now precision is paramount but intangibles tend to become more important. Things such as planning, experience, self management, attitude, and strategy play a much more important role.

Tight pockets are fine but poorly cut pockets are not. Corner pockets need to be cut properly to accept a well aimed object ball that strikes with speed within the points or hugging the rail.

Chris

Ps. congrats for jogging. I'm getting back into my routine myself and I feel a ton better already.

 

[Island Drive]

In a match between two opponents, tight pockets always favor the better player because more precision is needed. Loose pockets tend to make the outcome of the match less predictable, since less precision is required and subtle differences between two player's abiltiies tend to matter less.

It's kind of like golf. On a regular golf course, say 6400 yard par 72 with a 125 slope, a club pro and a touring pro might both shoot consistent 68's. Put them on a PGA course with fast greeens, 7000+ yards, tucked pins, huge, well placed bunkers, and grown out rough, the PGA pro might shoot 69 or 70, while the club pro is shooting 77. The reason is because now precision is paramount but intangibles tend to become more important. Things such as planning, experience, self management, attitude, and strategy play a much more important role.

Tight pockets are fine but poorly cut pockets are not. Corner pockets need to be cut properly to accept a well aimed object ball that strikes with speed within the points or hugging the rail.

Chris

Ps. congrats for jogging. I'm getting back into my routine myself and I feel a ton better already.

But keep in mind EYESIGHT is a huge advantage when your 18 -20 yr old compared to someone who's 50. To give this factor an advantage in our sport is truly not what out game is all about.

 

[Island Drive]

All the tournaments played on Diamond's, have 4 1/2" corner pockets & 5 1/16" side pockets, perceived as big pockets it seems by most here on AZ. So, what tight pockets are you talking about Efren has a disadvantage on against younger players? Here's something to think about also when talking about "tight" pockets that I bet most don't think about, yes, it may be harder to pocket a ball on tighter pockets, but in the same respect, isn't it also harder to scratch the cue ball as well, as it's the same size as the rest of the balls, isn't it?

Glen

.................oke:Go Play with the other kids

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

...Here's something to think about also when talking about "tight" pockets that I bet most don't think about, yes, it may be harder to pocket a ball on tighter pockets, but in the same respect, isn't it also harder to scratch the cue ball as well, as it's the same size as the rest of the balls, isn't it?

Glen

You may know a lot about setting up tables but apparently you don't know one of the most basic things in pool that the rest of us players know - and that is that pockets are WAY bigger in relation to the cue ball, especially when the CB is approaching the side pocket at even acute angles. :grin:

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Eyesight is one variable, and maybe not the most important one. I remember a quote by the miz saying that he saw the balls fuzzy.

Younger players have no fear of any shot on the table. Older players can be more carefull. Younger players can have more stamina and steadier nerves too. Of course there are exceptions to all of these.

But keep in mind EYESIGHT is a huge advantage when your 18 -20 yr old compared to someone who's 50. To give this factor an advantage in our sport is truly not what out game is all about.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[DRW]

You may know a lot about setting up tables but apparently you don't know one of the most basic things in pool that the rest of us players know - and that is that pockets are WAY bigger in relation to the cue ball, especially when the CB is approaching the side pocket at even acute angles. :grin:

I find that when you beg, as it is heading for the side pocket, makes it go in more often.:smile:

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I find that when you beg, as it is heading for the side pocket, makes it go in more often.:smile:

Unless you are the opponent begging from your chair, in which case the CB never seems to fall. How many times have you gotten up out of your chair to watch the cue ball fall in the side only to see it hit the knuckle and fall perfectly on the next ball?

 

[BasementDweller]

In a match between two opponents, tight pockets always favor the better player because more precision is needed. Loose pockets tend to make the outcome of the match less predictable, since less precision is required and subtle differences between two player's abiltiies tend to matter less.

It's kind of like golf. On a regular golf course, say 6400 yard par 72 with a 125 slope, a club pro and a touring pro might both shoot consistent 68's. Put them on a PGA course with fast greeens, 7000+ yards, tucked pins, huge, well placed bunkers, and grown out rough, the PGA pro might shoot 69 or 70, while the club pro is shooting 77. The reason is because now precision is paramount but intangibles tend to become more important. Things such as planning, experience, self management, attitude, and strategy play a much more important role.

Tight pockets are fine but poorly cut pockets are not. Corner pockets need to be cut properly to accept a well aimed object ball that strikes with speed within the points or hugging the rail.

Chris

Ps. congrats for jogging. I'm getting back into my routine myself and I feel a ton better already.

What is the goal here? Is the sole objective to determine who the best player is, with the best player being defined as the one who can pocket the balls with snooker like precision?

Or is the goal something different? Like trying to create a product/game that is challenging and exciting (and not just to the die hard players) at the same time.

I've grown tired of all the attempts to use analogies of other sports to argue points about ours. I've done it myself several times. All of the analogies are flawed. For instance, what if professional basketball players felt it would really be more challenging to play on 11 foot hoops. Then we could really find out who the great players are. Or likewise, with football maybe we could double the length of the games. This way, we would have a much better chance of determining who the better team is. Of course these rules changes would be silly. They would even be silly if that's what the players really wanted.

Just because the "players" think it is better to play on tighter tables doesn't make it so. Plus, letting the pro players determine what is best for the game hasn't really gotten them very far.

 

[Island Drive]

What is the goal here? Is the sole objective to determine who the best player is, with the best player being defined as the one who can pocket the balls with snooker like precision?

Or is the goal something different? Like trying to create a product/game that is challenging and exciting (and not just to the die hard players) at the same time.

I've grown tired of all the attempts to use analogies of other sports to argue points about ours. I've done it myself several times. All of the analogies are flawed. For instance, what if professional basketball players felt it would really be more challenging to play on 11 foot hoops. Then we could really find out who the great players are. Or likewise, with football maybe we could double the length of the games. This way, we would have a much better chance of determining who the better team is. Of course these rules changes would be silly. They would even be silly if that's what the players really wanted.

Just because the "players" think it is better to play on tighter tables doesn't make it so. Plus, letting the pro players determine what is best for the game hasn't really gotten them very far.

Nice post, and your last paragraph..........

I've always found it to be true here in the states....that in the past, and I'm sure in the present, players have always wanted whats best for them and their game to gain an advantage/home court. Many times this has occurred, where the local hot shot talks someone in to adding allot of dollars and most often its just a one time shot, and the room owner takes a big loss.

It will take an interesting mix to come up with a standard for pros, from rail nose height, to pocket size to issues with the shelf depth, the facings and angles they are cut at. I just hope it doesn't become a political situation with a certain group and a narrow perspective making that decision. Makes me now wonder how snooker ''got it right''.

As far as cloth goes, it is what it is, as far as tightness of cloth, that too is up to the table mechanic at that particular location. But these other factors are important once the game gets to where it needs to be, and as of late, it feels like more & more....something good is going to happen for the sport and its players.

 

[C.Milian]

I'm sure the better players adjust easily to tight pockets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b629sKeQCx0&feature=related

If this is Table 2 or 3, they are very tight pockets. In this video you'll see them adjusting just fine with their angles. Bustamante even bumped a few balls around to create an easier out. He caromed the 9 to send it closeer to the 8 ball's rail. I'm not sure if that was his intention, but it dosen't look like he is concerned with making any balls the way it played out.

 

[Island Drive]

I'm sure the better players adjust easily to tight pockets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b629sKeQCx0&feature=related

If this is Table 2 or 3, they are very tight pockets. In this video you'll see them adjusting just fine with their angles. Bustamante even bumped a few balls around to create an easier out. He caromed the 9 to send it closeer to the 8 ball's rail. I'm not sure if that was his intention, but it dosen't look like he is concerned with making any balls the way it played out.

What a player is unable to do when you combine tight pockets with the agressive nature of rotation pool, is go the other way. Often a player will get on the wrong side, or as Roger Griffis used to say jokingly, the ''amateur side''. On an small pocketed table, with an object ball lets say 3 diamonds up from the corner pocket and an inch or so off the rail, the force follow, come three or four rails around, is NOT an option anymore, it then becomes board play, safteis and ball herding and such. When a great player is allowed this option, they are better able to get a feel of these other shots in their arsenal and are able to catch another gear or two, smooth out their swing, relax even more and play lights out. Do we want to take this aspect of play away, I think its wrong, we're not playing snooker. Sigel in his prime, and the great force follow shots of Kimmer/Davenport are taken away, and when they execute shots like this against an opponent they are able to get their opponent to fold, roll over, choke, dog it or whatever you want to call it, and that's the true nature of Rotation Pool.

 

[Neil]

................

 

[realkingcobra]

But keep in mind EYESIGHT is a huge advantage when your 18 -20 yr old compared to someone who's 50. To give this factor an advantage in our sport is truly not what out game is all about.

Let me tell you something Island Drive, I was a player long before I was a table mechanic. My high run in 14.1 is 163, so I think I can hold a conversation with pretty much anyone about the subject of playing pool. Here's another thing for you to consider, eye sight or not, not having to wear glasses because you're 18 to 20 years old playing pool, DON'T may you any smarter than that 50yr old you like to refer to as pretty much over the hill because of age.

The MAIN reason why the older players fade away to younger players, is because they've been to the top of the mountain and seen what's up there far more than ANY young player has, so it's an old story trying to get back up there to see the SAME THING again, a world championship with out being able to make enough money to say, "I think I'll skip the next tournament, buy a house with my prize money and retire" while the younger players, all cocky as hell, who've never been to the top, have all the drive and determination to GET there for the FIRST or SECOND time, only to find out later in life, trophies on the wall don't pay the bills in retirement.

With the OLDER players as you like to put it, it's all about needing a REASON to get back up to the top, as they've been there so many times already.

With the YOUNGER players, it's all about, I just want to get recognized for once! And in time, if they stick with it, they will. I'll tell you something else about the younger players. They fade away from the game much faster than the older players ever have, as a lot of them find out early in their career, this is a hard road to travel to get to the top, so I'm just going to get a job, and play pool on the side!!!

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Glen

 

[C.Milian]

What a player is unable to do when you combine tight pockets with the agressive nature of rotation pool, is go the other way. Often a player will get on the wrong side, or as Roger Griffis used to say jokingly, the ''amateur side''. On an small pocketed table, with an object ball lets say 3 diamonds up from the corner pocket and an inch or so off the rail, the force follow, come three or four rails around, is NOT an option anymore, it then becomes board play, safteis and ball herding and such. When a great player is allowed this option, they are better able to get a feel of these other shots in their arsenal and are able to catch another gear or two, smooth out their swing, relax even more and play lights out. Do we want to take this aspect of play away, I think its wrong, we're not playing snooker. Sigel in his prime, and the great force follow shots of Kimmer/Davenport are taken away, and when they execute shots like this against an opponent they are able to get their opponent to fold, roll over, choke, dog it or whatever you want to call it, and that's the true nature of Rotation Pool.

I have no experience watching any of the mentioned players upfront. The more experienced and developed players have the ability to instantly adjust and accept the outcome of the cueballs future position. As exampled, Efren and Busta will destroy players half their age on that table. Five years from now when their eyes odometer can barely turn, they will play the same if not better.

The cueball will work if they want it to. It's a serious exibition so they aren't really clowning around.

 

[sheffield6]

Tight pockets, easy pockets, fast cloth, slow cloth, its the same for both players. My opinion is, the best player is the one who adapts to the conditions.

 

[realkingcobra]

Sounds like it might be time to get some glasses! Seriously though, to me, the bigger problem is the cloth. Why mechanics feel they have to stretch it as tight as they possibly can is beyond me. I've seen bartables that were faster than the billiard tables in the same room! I once saw a fly by the table, and I swear half the balls rolled a little when that little sucker farted.

The cloth today doesn't need a stroke. It requires just a rolling cb to get around the table. Bring back slower cloth! It doesn't have to be napped, just not stretched so blame tight.

Neil, cloth stretched tight is not what makes a table play so fast. There's a lot of factors that make that happen. Simonis 860 plays no faster on a bar table than it does on a 9ft, unless the rails are not right:grin: