When did tight pocket tables emerge?

MoonshineMattK

MoonshineMattK

.
Silver Member
Have they been around forever or is it a trend from the last 20 years?

My uncle graduated HS in early 60's Chicago and shot pool all over the city even making trips to the Johnston City tournys.

When I purchased my pro pocket Pro Am in 2005 he was shocked when I showed him the pockets and I could tell it was something he had not run across before.

So my question to Jay, JohnnyT and the other AZ members wiser than my 33 yrs:

How were the pockets of the tables you played on in the 50's and 60's cut.

My question is stemming from the Mosconi high run thread and the talk of the table being loose.
My belief is that the tables of the era might have had uneven pocket widths on the same table
but that a company like Brunswick did not have different pocket cuts available.
All of the early Gold Crowns, Anniversarys etc I have played on were equally loose.
 
MoonshineMattK said:
Have they been around forever or is it a trend from the last 20 years?

My uncle graduated HS in early 60's Chicago and shot pool all over the city even making trips to the Johnston City tournys.

When I purchased my pro pocket Pro Am in 2005 he was shocked when I showed him the pockets and I could tell it was something he had not run across before.

So my question to Jay, JohnnyT and the other AZ members wiser than my 33 yrs:

How were the pockets of the tables you played on in the 50's and 60's cut.

My question is stemming from the Mosconi high run thread and the talk of the table being loose.
My belief is that the tables of the era might have had uneven pocket widths on the same table
but that a company like Brunswick did not have different pocket cuts available.
All of the early Gold Crowns, Anniversarys etc I have played on were equally loose.
Click to expand...

In Mosconi's autobiography he said that before 1950 they played on 10ft tables with 4 1/2" pockets and after 1950 it was 9ft tables with 5" pockets. I've seen old 10 ft tables from the 1920's and the pockets were tight - you couldn't fit 2 balls in the jaws.
 
I think tight pocket tables have always been around. I recall Johnny Ervolino telling me about a super tight table at the 7:11 room in NYC. This had to go back 40 years, or more. So I don't think the idea of tight pockets is new.

That said, before Diamond, no manufacturer I know of offered tight pockets. And that makes sense, for a table for general use (not AZ shooters!), the pockets should be large. People want to make balls and have fun. If I were a manufacturer, I'd offer 6" pockets!
 
tedkaufman said:
I think tight pocket tables have always been around. I recall Johnny Ervolino telling me about a super tight table at the 7:11 room in NYC.
Click to expand...

That table was known as the "rebel trap". The pockets were under 4" inches. Supposedly a young Steve Mizerak practiced on it all day and never once ran 50 balls!
 
Speaking of Miz, he mentioned in one of his books that he had a tight table in his home, and no one wanted to play on it. I forget the measurement.

I also remember reading or hearing Siegel talk about how things used to be tighter, and his idea for TV was to open up the pockets so everyone could run racks...

...and how it came back to bite him in the ass.
 
Bobby said:
That table was known as the "rebel trap". The pockets were under 4" inches. Supposedly a young Steve Mizerak practiced on it all day and never once ran 50 balls!
Click to expand...

I played Spanish Eddy on that 9 ft...it was around the corner from the
counter. It was looser than 4 inches but tighter than 4.5....you could still
whack them in down the rail.

The 'rebel trap' was the 5x10 pool table.
It was called 'rebel' because back then the standard table down south was
4x8...that 5x10 looked like a 6x12 to the Southerners.

The 711 also had a 6x12 that was VERY tight...I could play a little snooker
but I wouldn't even hit a ball on that monster.
 
dirtypool40 said:
Speaking of Miz, he mentioned in one of his books that he had a tight table in his home, and no one wanted to play on it. I forget the measurement.

I also remember reading or hearing Siegel talk about how things used to be tighter, and his idea for TV was to open up the pockets so everyone could run racks...

...and how it came back to bite him in the ass.
Click to expand...

How did tight pockets bite Mike Sigel in the ass?
 
I was just repeating what I read / heard from him.

Basically, if I understood him correctly, it was something about how he preferred the tighter equipment, and the looser equipment allowed lesser players to win matches they normally wouldn't.
 
dirtypool40 said:
I was just repeating what I read / heard from him.

Basically, if I understood him correctly, it was something about how he preferred the tighter equipment, and the looser equipment allowed lesser players to win matches they normally wouldn't.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't understand what you wrote. Mike Sigel, is the straightest shooting pool player under pressure I've ever seen. I can't even think of a good second place. So I could hardly understand why tight pockets would bite Sigel in the ass.
 
In my experience,they've been around a long while.

There used to be an old but pristine Irving Kaye bar box in Jackson,Tn that was close on size and actual pocket cut to a 4 1/2" Pro cut Diamond,but was "tougher" than any Diamond I have played on other than a 9 foot Pro in Memphis that is 3 1/2" because it was set up for one-pocket.

Maybe it has to do with with hard pocket facings or something else,but that table was a som***** when you add napped cloth to the equation. It also appeared to have been made that way from the start,because it didn't looked like it had been "gaffed" with shims.

They've offered a "tournament edition" on Gold Crowns for years dating back to when Barry was using them for the Open.

It also added to the cost of the tables for Barry,as well as on the street price. I believe it added 1000 to the price from the GC-III on,and think someone mentioned here it adds 1500 to the GC-V.

Those of you that have played on a 4 1/2" pocketed Gold Crown you know those can be tough and sometimes unfair,so I don't feel a deep desire to go any tougher than that or a standard pro cut Diamond if I was buying a table. Tommy D.
 
Tight pockets have been around for about as long as pocket pool has been around, only they weren't being tightened up by the manufacturer, but by table mechanics adding additional facings to the pockets to make them tighter. Miter angles and down angles were never even touched on by table mechanics at that time. The 211 club in Seattle, WA had Brunswick 5'x10's dating back to the 1920's and they all had 5 1/2" or so corner pockets & 6" sides, because they were all untouched from the original pocket spec's when the tables were built by Brunswick.

Glen
 
Tommy-D said:
In my experience,they've been around a long while.

There used to be an old but pristine Irving Kaye bar box in Jackson,Tn that was close on size and actual pocket cut to a 4 1/2" Pro cut Diamond,but was "tougher" than any Diamond I have played on other than a 9 foot Pro in Memphis that is 3 1/2" because it was set up for one-pocket.

Maybe it has to do with with hard pocket facings or something else,but that table was a som***** when you add napped cloth to the equation. It also appeared to have been made that way from the start,because it didn't looked like it had been "gaffed" with shims.

They've offered a "tournament edition" on Gold Crowns for years dating back to when Barry was using them for the Open.

It also added to the cost of the tables for Barry,as well as on the street price. I believe it added 1000 to the price from the GC-III on,and think someone mentioned here it adds 1500 to the GC-V.

Those of you that have played on a 4 1/2" pocketed Gold Crown you know those can be tough and sometimes unfair,so I don't feel a deep desire to go any tougher than that or a standard pro cut Diamond if I was buying a table. Tommy D.
Click to expand...

When I bought new Brunswick Gold Crown 3's for my first pool room in 1989, there was no such table as a Gold Crown 3 Tournament Edition with 4 1/2" corner pockets, and there still wasn't when I bought 28 more 9ft Gold Crown 3's for my second pool room in 1990. They all came with the standard 5" corner pockets, I'd know for sure, as I've been working as a table mechanic since 1983;)
 
Well then I stand corrected on the dating,no sweat :cool:.

I remember seeing the tables for the Open in '94,and they were 2 balls wide with no extra room much like your crazy-nice work on everything you've ever posted.

It was explained to me by someone that worked for Q-Master that they were set up like that at factory-level,by request,and that all you had to do if you wanted to buy a brand new one from a dealer that you could specify "tournament edition.",and it was 1000 extra but doable.

If that was a load of crap,I apologize for spreading bogus info.

Not like I just made that up,LOL.
 
MoonshineMattK said:
Have they been around forever or is it a trend from the last 20 years?

My uncle graduated HS in early 60's Chicago and shot pool all over the city even making trips to the Johnston City tournys.

When I purchased my pro pocket Pro Am in 2005 he was shocked when I showed him the pockets and I could tell it was something he had not run across before.

So my question to Jay, JohnnyT and the other AZ members wiser than my 33 yrs:

How were the pockets of the tables you played on in the 50's and 60's cut.

My question is stemming from the Mosconi high run thread and the talk of the table being loose.
My belief is that the tables of the era might have had uneven pocket widths on the same table
but that a company like Brunswick did not have different pocket cuts available.
All of the early Gold Crowns, Anniversarys etc I have played on were equally loose.
Click to expand...

When Diamond billiards products started making tables.The only tight tables I've ever seen In my 30+years of playing were some kind of gaffed up table that didn't play right.IMO.John B.
 
MoonshineMattK said:
Have they been around forever or is it a trend from the last 20 years?

My uncle graduated HS in early 60's Chicago and shot pool all over the city even making trips to the Johnston City tournys.

When I purchased my pro pocket Pro Am in 2005 he was shocked when I showed him the pockets and I could tell it was something he had not run across before.

So my question to Jay, JohnnyT and the other AZ members wiser than my 33 yrs:

How were the pockets of the tables you played on in the 50's and 60's cut.

My question is stemming from the Mosconi high run thread and the talk of the table being loose.
My belief is that the tables of the era might have had uneven pocket widths on the same table
but that a company like Brunswick did not have different pocket cuts available.
All of the early Gold Crowns, Anniversarys etc I have played on were equally loose.
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, right before I started sucking at pool :)

~rc
 
Tommy-D said:
Well then I stand corrected on the dating,no sweat :cool:.

I remember seeing the tables for the Open in '94,and they were 2 balls wide with no extra room much like your crazy-nice work on everything you've ever posted.

It was explained to me by someone that worked for Q-Master that they were set up like that at factory-level,by request,and that all you had to do if you wanted to buy a brand new one from a dealer that you could specify "tournament edition.",and it was 1000 extra but doable.

If that was a load of crap,I apologize for spreading bogus info.

Not like I just made that up,LOL.
Click to expand...

No, you're not wrong on that, the GC4 did come out with a tournament edition, with single thickness facings...thick as hell to make up for the lack of extending the sub-rails to get the corner pockets to 4 9/16"s but they didn't change the miter angles to make the pockets accept the balls any better, so yes, they would reject balls out of the pockets that should have went in. That's what most people don't understand, there's a method to the madness when tightening up pockets to play harder, but harder is not the same-thing as tougher, as there IS a relationship between the pocket openings, miter angles, and down angles, as well as what kind of facings are used that ALL have some kind of feed back in just how a corner pocket accepts the balls...or don't.

Glen
 
My 10' Centennial Snooker Table had 3 1/2" Corners and 4" sides:

ry%3D400


and the balls were smaller 2 1/8":grin: but it was a lot of fun playing 8 Ball and rotation as well as Kelly Pool.

My current 12 footer has 3 1/4" corners and 3 3/4" sides and let me tell you 8 Ball and Rotation just ain't the same:thumbup: even though the balls are a 1/16" smaller:embarrassed2:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top