A potentially new take on pocket cuts?

nathandumoulin

nathandumoulin

WPBL / RUNOUT MEDIA
Silver Member
I admit, I never really follow the threads regarding the detailed specifications of various pocket cuts. Almost all the tables here in Canada are GCs, and the cut is almost always the same. It never factors into my non-existent game until I travel to an event in the States and start hanging balls like an idiot because of the deeper shelf on Diamond tables.

Now I hear people say fairly frequently that deeper shelves are great because it hangs balls if they're slightly mishit. However why is this a good thing?

Why not have a very shallow shelf, and then make the pocket mouth much smaller? If the ball is aimed accurately enough to go in the pocket opening, then it should be a good shot. Basketball hoops, hockey and soccer nets, field goal uprights, etc... in no other sport can you be accurate enough to put the ball into the allotted space to score, yet "not hit it right" and have it be rejected.

Having to hit a ball at pocket speed to avoid jawing it causes top pros to be hesitant towards power and stroke shots, which are the most fun to watch. Why not reduce the shelf to promote those shots, while also reducing the pocket mouth to promote accuracy?
 
Sounds good in theory. I don't mind on way or the other to be honest. But I do like this idea.


-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
 
nathandumoulin said:
I admit, I never really follow the threads regarding the detailed specifications of various pocket cuts. Almost all the tables here in Canada are GCs, and the cut is almost always the same. It never factors into my non-existent game until I travel to an event in the States and start hanging balls like an idiot because of the deeper shelf on Diamond tables.

Now I hear people say fairly frequently that deeper shelves are great because it hangs balls if they're slightly mishit. However why is this a good thing?

Why not have a very shallow shelf, and then make the pocket mouth much smaller? If the ball is aimed accurately enough to go in the pocket opening, then it should be a good shot. Basketball hoops, hockey and soccer nets, field goal uprights, etc... in no other sport can you be accurate enough to put the ball into the allotted space to score, yet "not hit it right" and have it be rejected.

Having to hit a ball at pocket speed to avoid jawing it causes top pros to be hesitant towards power and stroke shots, which are the most fun to watch. Why not reduce the shelf to promote those shots, while also reducing the pocket mouth to promote accuracy?
Click to expand...

I always thought that that's how pockets should be cut. Ernesto's pockets play like that. I'm not sure why people think balls are supposed to hang up.

Its extremely contradictory that people think that pockets should be tighter to enforce higher standards of pocketing, but players should be punished more for getting close to a good shot with pocket speed rather than just completely missing the pocket or slamming the ball at the pocket.

Imagine in basketball if offensive rebounds weren't allowed if the ball hit the backboard or rim, but were allowed for air balls. Nobody would take a shot unless it was 100% guaranteed to go in for fear of giving possession to the opposing team. Taking a low percentage shot might as well be handing them the ball, so it wouldn't leave much room for spectacular stuff to happen. That is essentially what it is like.
 
Last edited:
What? I live to rattle balls.

You do need to have some shelf or certain shots would become too easy (rail shots), and with super-tight pockets some would become too hard (banks).

But I agree that the shelf should not be overly deep.

You can also make the table more friendly by increasing the pocket edge round-off radius to ensure that balls that make the jaws do, in fact, fall.
 
nathandumoulin said:
However why is this a good thing?

Why not have a very shallow shelf, and then make the pocket mouth much smaller?

Why not reduce the shelf to promote those shots, while also reducing the pocket mouth to promote accuracy?
Click to expand...

Pool is a game of extreme precision.
Sloppy pockets detract from the extreme precision required to rise to the top.
Long shelves add to the punishment of making minute errors.
 
I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I hung about 4 or 5 shots in the jaws on a (old) red label diamond 9 footer. Its frustrating, I have played on the new diamond blue label tables and they seem better. Not nearly as many hangers or I just could have been having a good day who knows.
 
MitchAlsup said:
Pool is a game of extreme precision.
Sloppy pockets detract from the extreme precision required to rise to the top. Long shelves add to the punishment of making minute errors.
Click to expand...

How is a shallow shelf and smaller mouth 'sloppy'? If you hit the target, it goes in. If you miss, it doesn't. The smaller mouth increases the precision required.

Imagine a game of football where if you kick a field goal and hit the upright post, then your opponent gets a free chance to kick a counter field goal. That would be silly.....and that's essentially the same as what's happening in pool when you rattle a ball.

I mean, why be punished for coming 99% close to pocketing the ball? You're effectively rewarded for missing by a larger margin, as at least the ball doesn't sit in the pocket for your opponent.

Anyway, any chance you could elaborate on your viewpoint for me? Curious to hear what the opposing side of the fence has to say. :)
 
Last edited:
And a deep shelf sometimes results in a hung ball sitting soo deep in the pocket, one cannot go rail first. That is too deep (uhh, baby).

My take on the matter: I don't really care whch way we go, but please, can we use a single standard>!?
 
amen

i've always thought the same thing. however you can probably get the same effect with rounding out the jaws of the table, balls may jar time to time but for the most part they'll get spit out if hit with speed. you can't slop a ball in on them either

you're idea takes away those lucky rail hooks though.
 
nathandumoulin said:
How is a short shelf pocket with a small mouth 'sloppy'? If you hit the target, it goes in. If you miss, it doesn't. The smaller mouth increases the precision required.

Imagine a game of football where if you kick a field goal and hit the upright post, then your opponent gets a free chance to kick a counter field goal. That would be silly.....and that's essentially the same as what's happening in pool when you rattle a ball.

I mean, why be punished for coming 99% close to pocketing the ball? You're effectively rewarded for missing by a larger margin, as at least the ball doesn't sit in the pocket for your opponent.

Anyway, any chance you could elaborate on this for me?
Click to expand...

Nate:

While I slightly disagree with MitchAlsup that pool is a sport of "extreme precision" (compared to other cue sports, like snooker), moves have been made by companies like Diamond, to sharpen it up.

One of the problems with pool, is that it is the only cue sport where you can send a ball towards a corner pocket, have it glance off the adjoining cushion on its way down towards the corner pocket (by as much as a full diamond), and *still* go in the pocket. In other cue sports, that is considered slop.

Other cue sports have solved that problem with either rounded pocket apertures (i.e. snooker), or at the opposite end of the spectrum, extremely pointed pocket knuckles (Russian Pyramid). The chiseled pocket apertures of pool say that as long as you hit the flat face of the pocket's throat, that ball goes in -- even if you glance the adjoining cushion. Diamond's pocket cuts are of the precise angle that will accept a ball hitting the chiseled face directly, but not accept a ball hitting the chiseled face from the angle formed when the ball glances off the adjoining cushion. (The ball bobbles and hangs on the extended shelf.)

The deep shelf of Diamond tables says that you must hit the throat of the pocket directly, or at least slow enough that a sloppily-hit ball is hit with a different type of precision -- the precise speed -- that the pocket accepts it.

I agree, though, that the average Joe/Jane player may not need this kind of "fix" for precision on pool tables. I can say this -- when you do get used to pocketing on a Diamond table -- at all speeds -- when you finally do play on a "standard setup" Gold Crown (not one that's been modified to play like a Diamond), it's a dream...

-Sean
 
sfleinen said:
Nate:

While I slightly disagree with MitchAlsup that pool is a sport of "extreme precision" (compared to other cue sports, like snooker), moves have been made by companies like Diamond, to sharpen it up.

One of the problems with pool, is that it is the only cue sport where you can send a ball towards a corner pocket, have it glance off the adjoining cushion on its way down towards the corner pocket (by as much as a full diamond), and *still* go in the pocket. In other cue sports, that is considered slop.

Other cue sports have solved that problem with either rounded pocket apertures (i.e. snooker), or at the opposite end of the spectrum, extremely pointed pocket knuckles (Russian Pyramid). The chiseled pocket apertures of pool say that as long as you hit the flat face of the pocket's throat, that ball goes in -- even if you glance the adjoining cushion. Diamond's pocket cuts are of the precise angle that will accept a ball hitting the chiseled face directly, but not accept a ball hitting the chiseled face from the angle formed when the ball glances off the adjoining cushion. (The ball bobbles and hangs on the extended shelf.)

The deep shelf of Diamond tables says that you must hit the throat of the pocket directly, or at least slow enough that a sloppily-hit ball is hit with a different type of precision -- the precise speed -- that the pocket accepts it.

I agree, though, that the average Joe/Jane player may not need this kind of "fix" for precision on pool tables. I can say this -- when you do get used to pocketing on a Diamond table -- at all speeds -- when you finally do play on a "standard setup" Gold Crown (not one that's been modified to play like a Diamond), it's a dream...

-Sean
Click to expand...

I actually understand why Diamond cuts their pockets the way they do, and the logic behind it. In my opinion, the 'fix' that you described is extremely faulty. If a ball being shot down the rail contacts the cushion a full diamond up, then the pocket mouth should simply be small enough that the ball flat-out misses. The concept of having the facings angled past parallel of each other seems entirely unnecessary.

As far as I'm concerned, under no circumstance whatsoever should a ball ever hang. You either make the shot, or you miss. There should be no greater penalty for "almost pocketing" the ball, rather than missing it by a large margin.

In my opinion you're one of the most intelligent people on this board. Rather than explain to me why Diamonds are cut as they are (which I understand), can you please attempt to explain to me how a smaller pocket mouth and shallow shelf wouldn't alleviate the problem as well?
 
Last edited:
nathandumoulin said:
[...]
Rather than explain to me why Diamonds are cut as they are (which I understand), can you please attempt to explain to me how a smaller pocket mouth and shallow shelf wouldn't alleviate the problem as well?
Click to expand...

Nate:

Thanks for the kind words, and yes, I do understand your position. Your position is that if the ball was hit accurately enough to "enter" the pocket aperture, the automatic outcome *should be* a pocketed ball. I get it.

The problem, I think (these are only my thoughts) that if you make the pockets small enough to do what you say, you are no longer playing pool -- you are in essence playing snooker. I'm thinking that, if you make the pockets small enough that a ball shot glancing the adjoining rail towards a corner pocket just outright misses the pocket, you have, in essence, a bastardized snooker table. (Because that's what happens in snooker -- if you glance the adjoining rail, you end up hitting the rounded edge of the pocket and that ball bounces right back at you.)

Again, just my thoughts. Other folks may see it differently.
-Sean
 
nathandumoulin said:
I admit, I never really follow the threads regarding the detailed specifications of various pocket cuts. Almost all the tables here in Canada are GCs, and the cut is almost always the same. It never factors into my non-existent game until I travel to an event in the States and start hanging balls like an idiot because of the deeper shelf on Diamond tables.

Now I hear people say fairly frequently that deeper shelves are great because it hangs balls if they're slightly mishit. However why is this a good thing?

Why not have a very shallow shelf, and then make the pocket mouth much smaller? If the ball is aimed accurately enough to go in the pocket opening, then it should be a good shot. Basketball hoops, hockey and soccer nets, field goal uprights, etc... in no other sport can you be accurate enough to put the ball into the allotted space to score, yet "not hit it right" and have it be rejected.

Having to hit a ball at pocket speed to avoid jawing it causes top pros to be hesitant towards power and stroke shots, which are the most fun to watch. Why not reduce the shelf to promote those shots, while also reducing the pocket mouth to promote accuracy?
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a while. I enjoy playing on very tight tables very much, if they don't rattle balls much. Tight gold crowns usually fit this description. Want a table that demands precision? Make the pockets SMALLER. Want a table that introduces more uncertainty and arbitrariness into the game? Cut the pockets so they rattle more balls. But why would we want that?

-Andrew
 
I have mixed feelings about the original post. In my opinion, Diamonds have a true cut and I'll explain what I mean. The moment I send an object ball toward a pocket, I know if it's going to go in or not. It's just extremely rare to not get the result I expected. Now, I'm not saying the standard Diamond isn't a tighter table than the standard Brunswick. I know it is. All I'm saying is, there are plenty of shots on a Brunswick that end up dropping when I don't expect them to and hanging when I expect the ball to drop. I think (though I can't say with absolute certainty), Diamond's deep shelf and squared pocket jaws promote this. Yes, they're tougher to play on but I feel they're more predictable. There's nothing I hate more than having a ball hang when I thought I hit it well. Now, that's not to say this doesn't happen on a Diamond too. It happens everywhere. I just think it happens LESS on a Diamond.

With that said, I still really enjoy playing on different equipment. I think part of what makes competing a lot of fun is switching things up, whether it's the rules of the game or the equipment specs but maybe this has to do with the fact I'm comfortable on the common brand tables used in tournaments. I'd probably feel differently if I was competing on equipment I had almost no experience on.
 
My cue maker has a GC with just over 4" pockets. i believe we measured 4 1/8" or a hair under. i love that table. extremely difficult to play on. It humbles me very quickly.
 
joey900rr said:
I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I hung about 4 or 5 shots in the jaws on a (old) red label diamond 9 footer. Its frustrating, I have played on the new diamond blue label tables and they seem better. Not nearly as many hangers or I just could have been having a good day who knows.
Click to expand...

It's hard to say. I haven't seen a blue label yet (looking forward to it next week). I can say with certainty that the age of the cloth has a huge influence with how easy a table plays. As well, Diamonds typically come in 4.5" pockets but not ALWAYS. Without a ruler on hand (and I rarely carry my ruler), it's hard to say what the reason might be.
 
???

nathandumoulin said:
I actually understand why Diamond cuts their pockets the way they do, and the logic behind it. In my opinion, the 'fix' that you described is extremely faulty. If a ball being shot down the rail contacts the cushion a full diamond up, then the pocket mouth should simply be small enough that the ball flat-out misses. The concept of a 'facing' seems entirely unnecessary.

As far as I'm concerned, under no circumstance whatsoever should a ball ever hang. You either make the shot, or you miss. There should be no greater penalty for "almost pocketing" the ball, rather than missing it by a large margin.

In my opinion you're one of the most intelligent people on this board. Rather than explain to me why Diamonds are cut as they are (which I understand), can you please attempt to explain to me how a smaller pocket mouth and shallow shelf wouldn't alleviate the problem as well?
Click to expand...


Those are interesting and well defined thoughts, but should pro-level-pool be like a video game? Deep slates have been the mainstay of difficult gambling tables for years. In gambling situations, sometimes, it's the sole reason one player refuses to play on a particular table, and that was long before Greg even had the idea to build the first diamond in his garage!
That deep shelf, slate concept was first called to my attention by Joe Burns of Forrest Park Billiards back in 1980. He believed it separated the shortstops, from world class players, I don't disagree.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
There's nothing I hate more than having a ball hang when I thought I hit it well. Now, that's not to say this doesn't happen on a Diamond too. It happens everywhere. I just think it happens LESS on a Diamond.
Click to expand...

I have the exact opposite unsubstantiated impression: I feel it happens MORE on a Diamond than a tight Gold Crown, especially with shots hit hard.

My idea of an ideal table is 4" pockets, with pocket facings parallel to each other, such that if the ball strikes the interior of the facing (not the point) you can always expect it to drop. You can always let your stroke out as long as you know you're going to hit the pocket.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top