Diamond Travel Paths

1ab

1ab

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
On an earlier post, one response referenced table size causing a skew in diamond travel paths on a bar box. What, if that's the case, changes occur on different size tables? Was the diamond system originally designed for a specific table? Have they changed in any way over the years?
 
1ab said:
On an earlier post, one response referenced table size causing a skew in diamond travel paths on a bar box. What, if that's the case, changes occur on different size tables? Was the diamond system originally designed for a specific table? Have they changed in any way over the years?
Click to expand...
As pointed out in the other thread, "the diamond system" is a tricky phrase. There are dozens of diamond systems.

The corner-5 system which may be the one you are referring to was developed in the 1920s or maybe even earlier. That's the one you would use to shoot from one corner pocket to go three cushions around the table to make a ball in the other corner pocket on the same short cushion.

Mike Shamos has a whole page on the origins of the various diamond systems in his Illustrated Encyclopedia. It was developed primarily for carom billiards with ivory balls on 5x10 tables. It is standard to apply corrections to the corner-5 system (or any diamond system, for that matter) according to how the table plays.

The numbers are changed far more by how the cushions play than by the size of the table. Going from slippery to sticky cloth can easily change your calculations by a whole diamond or maybe even two. Also, some tables have cushions that are just plain broken, producing unpredictable results for small adjustments.

In general, a pool table will play "shorter" than a carom table, but I have seen some bar boxes that play far "longer" than any carom table I've played on. If you want to learn about diamond systems including the corner-5, I think Robert Byrne's "Standard Book of Pool and Billiards" has the best introduction in print. He includes how to adjust systematically.
 
Last edited:
1ab said:
On an earlier post, one response referenced table size causing a skew in diamond travel paths on a bar box. What, if that's the case, changes occur on different size tables? Was the diamond system originally designed for a specific table? Have they changed in any way over the years?
Click to expand...

First, lets not confuse "diamonds" with "diamond systems".
There are multiple diamond systems.

When diamonds first appeared on tables, (credited to Michael Phelan) the most common table size was a huge 12 foot monster. But, as far as we know, the diamond markers were not neccesarily intended for just a 12ft table only. They can be used on any size table, as long as they are calculated proportionate to the table's size.

As for different angles per table size, yes, the angles are slightly different in some ways because if a table is longer, the diamonds become further apart, and certain angles will become shallower. BUT - the accuracy of the angles is still theoretically identical, no matter what size table, assuming they have been calculated correctly by the table maker.

As far as I know, the diamond layout has never changed much.
 
1ab said:
On an earlier post, one response referenced table size causing a skew in diamond travel paths on a bar box. What, if that's the case, changes occur on different size tables? Was the diamond system originally designed for a specific table? Have they changed in any way over the years?
Click to expand...

Regardless of table size, the "sights" are centered 3 11/16 inches back from the cushion nose. So, they basically screw you up the same regardless of table size.

While the setback of sights may be advantageous for billiards, it is less useful for pool. For pool, having the marks on the nose of the cushion would be better in setting up banks.
 
Regardless of table size, the "sights" are centered 3 11/16 inches back from the cushion nose. ...
Click to expand...
There is some variation in diamond placement. I've even seen diamonds that were not at equal 1/8ths of the length. While the WPA specifies a standard for sight set-back in http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/WPA_Tournament_Table_Equipment_Specifications I suspect that the majority of bar table manufacturers are not aware of such a specification.
 
Regardless of length, if the playing surface is twice as long as it is wide the diamond systems should be effective. Longer travel, on longer tables change angles because the balls have more time to lose spin between rails. As far as diamond setback, sometimes you don't shoot to them, sometimes adjacent points on the rails,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
The diamond system is not exact, just like aiming systems aren't exact. They are to get you in the area. After that it's all feel. All tables play a bit, to a whole lot differently. All players don't stroke the same or as hard or soft. Humidity in the room plays a part at different times of day or year. Johnnyt
 
Johnnyt said:
The diamond system is not exact, just like aiming systems aren't exact. They are to get you in the area. After that it's all feel. All tables play a bit, to a whole lot differently. All players don't stroke the same or as hard or soft. Humidity in the room plays a part at different times of day or year. Johnnyt
Click to expand...

I tend to kick or bank better when I line up the shot using a system, and then adjust it after I get on the cue ball. If I've been playing on that table long enough, I tend to adjust the right way for the conditions. Great post.
 
Diamond points along the rails are aiming devices. It just so happens that on 10' and 12' billiards tables with very fast cloth, these systems are "square" to the system.

The 3+11/16 outset from the rails counteracts the roll and running sidespin on the ball for 10' and 12' tables. On smaller tables the fourth rail comes up short, 9' not being too unsquare (1/4-1/2 diamond), 8' needs definate compensation (1/2 diamond), 7' ned more compensation.

So the reason the system does not work properly is that we are not using it on the table size for which it was designed to be used. This is not its fault but ours.

The system COULD be fixed on a table-size by table-size basis by changing the specification of how far outset are the diamonds in the rails.
 
I think the best "Diamond System" everyone should at least learn is on pg.279 of Robert Byrens book New Standard Of Billards.
How to hit the 3rd rail.
 
Renegade_56 said:
Regardless of length, if the playing surface is twice as long as it is wide the diamond systems should be effective. Longer travel, on longer tables change angles because the balls have more time to lose spin between rails. As far as diamond setback, sometimes you don't shoot to them, sometimes adjacent points on the rails,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Click to expand...

I find it somewhat amazing how many people don't understand this
very basic concept. Perhaps it is tied with the way players learn to aim.

Dale
 
Just to add some more confusion...

The balls are the same size, regardless if the table is 7', 8', or 9'. The cushion nose height is also the same.

Without writing out a proof, I'm pretty sure this would affect most of the bank math...

-s
 
most of the diamond paths are relatively the same regardless of table size but will vary from table to table based on all the usual suspects rail speed cloth speed any skid humidity etc. these can be adjusted for by checking table before you begin. As long as the table is a standard 7,8 or 9 the dimensions will be twice as long as wide and the rail sights will be spaced differently eo accomodate the size of the playing surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top