TAR 30, and the winner is...

[robsnotes4u]

Mark this is what was said

The TAR table don't have the same rails on it now that it had when Shane ran 2 6 packs, and a 7 pack. Them rails were Fatboy's rails with 4 1/8" pockets, same size as what's on the TAR table today but...the difference is Fatboys pocket angles were 140 miters, and the rails on the TAR table today are 141 miter angles, meaning....the pockets on Fatboys rails are an 1/8" wider at the back of the throat than what they just played on. That little bit of a difference is what makes or breaks a shot going in the pocket at pocket speed with a slight angle

Glen[/QUOTE

Mark are you saying this isn't correct?

 

[pt109]

If you want to make pool unpopular.....
...make the pockets smaller....and make the shelves deeper.

 

[Mark Griffin]

TAR 30, and the winner is...

The rails on the TAR table-

We borrowed Fatboy's rails for a cuple of TAR events.
Glen had 'custom' made them - 4-1/8.

Everyone liked them - so we ordered a set from Diamond made on the CNC at factory. That did make some small changes -but now they can be replicated.

We put OUR rails on the TAR table around September or Ocotber of 2011.

I don't have in front of me when SVB ran all those racks on Alex, but I think it was on our rails. I know the Dennis Orcollo vs SVB was on our rails.

Not sure if I answered the questions, but that is what I know.

Mark Griffin

 

[robsnotes4u]

thanks

The rails on the TAR table-

We borrowed Fatboy's rails for a cuple of TAR events.
Glen had 'custom' made them - 4-1/8.

Everyone liked them - so we ordered a set from Diamond made on the CNC at factory. That did make some small changes -but now they can be replicated.

We put OUR rails on the TAR table around September or Ocotber of 2011.

I don't have in front of me when SVB ran all those racks on Alex, but I think it was on our rails. I know the Dennis Orcollo vs SVB was on our rails.

Not sure if I answered the questions, but that is what I know.

Mark Griffin

yes you did. i was confused.

 

[Scott Lee]

01rkclassic...Just FYI...there are hundreds, maybe thousands (at least) of missed putts and strikeouts for every putt/HR made. Nobody quits watching... Hank Aaron struck out 3000 times for his 700 HR's...just sayin'!

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I have to agree with you JMuck,nobody watches golf to see the pro's miss putts or baseball to see players strike out every time,we want to see the hole in ones or home runs!

 

[CreeDo]

Why should a table be perfect for one pocket and not ten ball? You are hitting the same size ball in both games. I have never understood it. Explain please?

I'm hardly the official 1p spokesman but I'll take a stab at it.

One pocket is a funny game, in some cases, coming close (i.e. rattling a ball) is just as good as making it. In a few cases, it's BETTER than making it.

Tight pockets means slightly mis-hit balls won't just rattle and sit in front of the pocket and basically give you a free point. They will probably fly away. A smaller hole also means more rail to play with when trying to swat a hanger away from the hole. So you have to earn every ball, close enough is not close enough.

And it will be harder to run 8-and-out, which means a smart mover has a good chance vs. a straighter shooter.

 

[Jaden]

This is the same on a diamond....

So Glen, what you're saying is:

1. The smaller you make the pockets on a GC (with original GC slate), the more the slate "recedes" back into the playing surface (because of the semi-circle cut in the slate), leaving less of a shelf for a ball to hang-up on.

2. That this is somehow a disadvantage -- i.e. there should be enough slate there for balls to hang-up deeply into a pocket aperture.

I'm not sure I understand why. Other than very poorly-hit balls that touch high-up on the cushion as they are traveling down the rail (and then hit the opposing chiseled pocket facing), I'm not sure I understand why there's a reason to "brag" about deep shelves in pockets -- presumably to hang balls up in the pockets.

Eager to hear an explanation for that. (I'm not being sarcastic, btw. I'm genuinely intrigued to hear why this is an "advantage.")

-Sean

I think that a tighter diamond plays better than a looser diamond. I MUCH prefer to play on a diamond with 4" pockets than a diamond with 4.5" pockets.

I think it's easier...

You have to hit the pocket cleaner, but cleanly hit balls don't rattle out as easily.

It's exactly because the rounding of the shelf makes the ball hang deeper into the pocket when the pocket is looser.

When it's tighter, the curve of the shelf means the shelf isn't as deep where the facing is.

Also a lot of the time when you tighten the pockets, the shelf angle changes in relation to the pocket so it angles more towards the pocket as opposed to the opposite shelf (less likely to rattle out)

I'm sure most of you have seen well struck hard shots on a standard diamond pro close to the rail rattle out, and soft shots that hit the rail a diamond from the pocket fall in....

That's just WRONG in my opinion. You should HAVE to hit the ball right for it to fall and if you DO hit the ball right it SHOULD fall.

That's one reason why I prefer a tightened Ernesto gold crown to a diamond pro.

Jaden

 

[realkingcobra]

I think that a tighter diamond plays better than a looser diamond. I MUCH prefer to play on a diamond with 4" pockets than a diamond with 4.5" pockets.

I think it's easier...

You have to hit the pocket cleaner, but cleanly hit balls don't rattle out as easily.

It's exactly because the rounding of the shelf makes the ball hang deeper into the pocket when the pocket is looser.

When it's tighter, the curve of the shelf means the shelf isn't as deep where the facing is.

Also a lot of the time when you tighten the pockets, the shelf angle changes in relation to the pocket so it angles more towards the pocket as opposed to the opposite shelf (less likely to rattle out)

I'm sure most of you have seen well struck hard shots on a standard diamond pro close to the rail rattle out, and soft shots that hit the rail a diamond from the pocket fall in....

That's just WRONG in my opinion. You should HAVE to hit the ball right for it to fall and if you DO hit the ball right it SHOULD fall.

That's one reason why I prefer a tightened Ernesto gold crown to a diamond pro.

Jaden

I'm working on some rails right now, so when i'm done and have the time, I'll address this a little more

 

[Jaden]

Let me also add....

I'm working on some rails right now, so when i'm done and have the time, I'll address this a little more

That as of right now, if the new rails (still haven't gotten a chance to play on the redesigned rails yet Glen) play truer, that my FAVORITE table to play on is a tightened Diamond...

Jaden

 

[JumpinJoe]

TAR's tries to do what's right for the players, but they might have accidentally gone too far. I don't know if it's due to the subtle change Cobra mentioned or some other factor. But the pool I saw was not exciting.

Zero break'n'runs for a two-time US Open Champion, and world 10b champion? Sorry... off-day or not, that's unthinkable.

This stuff about "the table doesn't favor darren's style" makes no sense. His 'style' is to play pool at world champion speed. He can hit a ball hard, soft, with spin, without spin, and everything in between. You can't reach his level without those skills. If that's not good enough for a certain table, then we need to fix the table... darren doesn't need to "fix" his game.

I've seen a lot of guys talk about the TAR 'free roll' as if it's just a simple paid exhibition. I don't agree with that, but if it's true, let's make this exhibition a little more entertaining. I'm not gonna pony up 35 bucks to watch a world champion put up a 0-pack.

He had 1 break and run on day 1 game 33 to be exact. Other than that he is just completely outmatched playing SVB. Last time he played Bartram if I'm not mistake, I could be, but it was to 100 and he could not see the finish line.

How bout this, DAZ is a great player, very great, but what he is great at is races to 9 or 11 when he has to face the guy only once. He tinkled all down his leg playing these TAR sessions against one guy for an extended period. However, he is one of the best tourney players on the face of the earth, no denying that.

Bottom line is, there is no one that is going to beat SVB playing day in day out playing 10 ball. His break is just way too good. And DAZ's break is not in the same zip code, nor is anyone elses.

 

[robsnotes4u]

thanks

I'm hardly the official 1p spokesman but I'll take a stab at it.

One pocket is a funny game, in some cases, coming close (i.e. rattling a ball) is just as good as making it. In a few cases, it's BETTER than making it.

Tight pockets means slightly mis-hit balls won't just rattle and sit in front of the pocket and basically give you a free point. They will probably fly away. A smaller hole also means more rail to play with when trying to swat a hanger away from the hole. So you have to earn every ball, close enough is not close enough.

And it will be harder to run 8-and-out, which means a smart mover has a good chance vs. a straighter shooter.

I guess that makes sense. i don't play one pocket but I can understand where you are coming from.

 

[robsnotes4u]

something to chew on

They use to have a golf tourney in our area where once a year they used a larger cup. Funny thing was the scores were not any lower than with the standard cup.

 

[realkingcobra]

That as of right now, if the new rails (still haven't gotten a chance to play on the redesigned rails yet Glen) play truer, that my FAVORITE table to play on is a tightened Diamond...

Jaden

OK, I have a few minutes to spare so here's an explanation of the difference in the rails used on the TAR table. When TAR first wanted to put a set of rails on the TAR table, Diamond at the time didn't make rails with 4 1/8" pocket opening, so because Fatboy's 9ft Diamond ProAm was in storage at the BCA warehouse, they borrowed the rails off his table and put them on the TAR table to start the beginning of the TAR table with tighter pockets. Shane and Alex played on this set of rails on the TAR table, and they both had high package runs, notably Shane with two 6 packs and one 7 pack. The rails were replaced after that with rails Diamond manufactured at the factory with the same pocket openings being 4 1/8".

Now comes the difference between Fatboy's rails and Diamond's. Though both sets of rails have the same pocket opening at the jaws of the corner pockets of 4 1/8" and the same down angle being 15 degrees, the difference between the two sets is in the miter angles. Diamond built there rails with 141 miter angles, while I built Fatboy's using 140 miter angles. Now, that may not seem like much of a change, but there's a few side effects of that change that do make a difference in how the balls act when being played in the pockets. First of all, there's a 1/16" of an inch change per degree of angle over the distance from the back of the pocket to the point of the pocket cushion...per side. So, that means the at the back of the throat in the corner pockets on Fatboy's rails...it's an 1/8" wider than the Diamond built rails. Second, the one degree difference in miter angle means the balls when coming into contact with the pocket facing going into the pocket are deflected a little deeper into the throat of the pocket than on the Diamond built rails, which translates into less of a ball rattle in the jaws of the pocket, resulting in more balls going in, instead of still sitting in the jaws of the pocket, meaning balls having a little better chance of going in if shot with good pocket speed.

After the Shane and Alex TAR match, the rails were switched out for the Diamond built rails.

Now, as far as Ernesto built pockets on a GC being 4". Think about this for a moment, at 4" pocket openings, there's virtually no pocket shelf for a ball to sit on, meaning a ball can't rattle to a stop in the jaws of the pocket, second...the miter angles are at 135 degrees, or very close to that, which means the throat of the pocket is almost the same as the pocket mouth opening, so balls that are hit into the pocket facings are deflected clear to the back of the pocket, with almost no chance of being bounced across to the other side of the pocket, meaning the pocket is a small target, but the hallway the ball has to pass through to drop in the pocket is huge which means if you just get past the point to point opening of the corner pocket...the ball is GONE!

 

[TATE]

OK, I have a few minutes to spare so here's an explanation of the difference in the rails used on the TAR table. When TAR first wanted to put a set of rails on the TAR table, Diamond at the time didn't make rails with 4 1/8" pocket opening, so because Fatboy's 9ft Diamond ProAm was in storage at the BCA warehouse, they borrowed the rails off his table and put them on the TAR table to start the beginning of the TAR table with tighter pockets. Shane and Alex played on this set of rails on the TAR table, and they both had high package runs, notably Shane with two 6 packs and one 7 pack. The rails were replaced after that with rails Diamond manufactured at the factory with the same pocket openings being 4 1/8".

Now comes the difference between Fatboy's rails and Diamond's. Though both sets of rails have the same pocket opening at the jaws of the corner pockets of 4 1/8" and the same down angle being 15 degrees, the difference between the two sets is in the miter angles. Diamond built there rails with 141 miter angles, while I built Fatboy's using 140 miter angles. Now, that may not seem like much of a change, but there's a few side effects of that change that do make a difference in how the balls act when being played in the pockets. First of all, there's a 1/16" of an inch change per degree of angle over the distance from the back of the pocket to the point of the pocket cushion...per side. So, that means the at the back of the throat in the corner pockets on Fatboy's rails...it's an 1/8" wider than the Diamond built rails. Second, the one degree difference in miter angle means the balls when coming into contact with the pocket facing going into the pocket are deflected a little deeper into the throat of the pocket than on the Diamond built rails, which translates into less of a ball rattle in the jaws of the pocket, resulting in more balls going in, instead of still sitting in the jaws of the pocket, meaning balls having a little better chance of going in if shot with good pocket speed.

After the Shane and Alex TAR match, the rails were switched out for the Diamond built rails.

Now, as far as Ernesto built pockets on a GC being 4". Think about this for a moment, at 4" pocket openings, there's virtually no pocket shelf for a ball to sit on, meaning a ball can't rattle to a stop in the jaws of the pocket, second...the miter angles are at 135 degrees, or very close to that, which means the throat of the pocket is almost the same as the pocket mouth opening, so balls that are hit into the pocket facings are deflected clear to the back of the pocket, with almost no chance of being bounced across to the other side of the pocket, meaning the pocket is a small target, but the hallway the ball has to pass through to drop in the pocket is huge which means if you just get past the point to point opening of the corner pocket...the ball is GONE!

Awesome post - this is very educational!

 

[bflojosh]

Every time Glen posts something on azb I learn a ton! You sir are a treasure of the billiards community

 

[realkingcobra]

I'll say this as well, ANYONE that thinks 4" corner pockets, with parallel miter angles is tough to play on, and claim to pocket balls from anywhere because they're THAT good, has no idea what it's like to play on a Diamond with 4 1/8" 141 miter angles, and if they did, they'd sing a different story about what TIGHT pockets are. Oscar claims to play on GC's with 4" corner pockets all the time, yet when he played on the TAR table with the Diamond 4 1/8" pockets, it didn't look like he could pocket balls at all, so....where did all that practice go playing on GC's with 4" pockets?

Who knows how HIGH the runs would be on the TAR table....with 4 1/8" corner pockets with the throat of the pocket being the same width as the mouth opening

 

[TATE]

I'll say this as well, ANYONE that thinks 4" corner pockets, with parallel miter angles is tough to play on, and claim to pocket balls from anywhere because they're THAT good, has no idea what it's like to play on a Diamond with 4 1/8" 141 miter angles, and if they did, they'd sing a different story about what TIGHT pockets are. Oscar claims to play on GC's with 4" corner pockets all the time, yet when he played on the TAR table with the Diamond 4 1/8" pockets, it didn't look like he could pocket balls at all, so....where did all that practice go playing on GC's with 4" pockets?

Who knows how HIGH the runs would be on the TAR table....with 4 1/8" corner pockets with the throat of the pocket being the same width as the mouth opening

Glen,

Ernesto cut mine on a Brunswick. They measure 4" from and 3 7/8" back. The shelf is shallow and the pockets drop well.

A ball fired down the rail should drop. The 4" opening makes misses miss. It doesn't make good shots rattle out. And rarely does it rattle and trap a hanger in the hole.

Come to LA and try me on it!

Chris

 

[sfleinen]

So Glen, what you're saying is:

1. The smaller you make the pockets on a GC (with original GC slate), the more the slate "recedes" back into the playing surface (because of the semi-circle cut in the slate), leaving less of a shelf for a ball to hang-up on.

2. That this is somehow a disadvantage -- i.e. there should be enough slate there for balls to hang-up deeply into a pocket aperture.

I'm not sure I understand why. Other than very poorly-hit balls that touch high-up on the cushion as they are traveling down the rail (and then hit the opposing chiseled pocket facing), I'm not sure I understand why there's a reason to "brag" about deep shelves in pockets -- presumably to hang balls up in the pockets.

Eager to hear an explanation for that. (I'm not being sarcastic, btw. I'm genuinely intrigued to hear why this is an "advantage.")

-Sean

Glen:

You didn't answer my post #37 (quoted above).

[...]
Now, as far as Ernesto built pockets on a GC being 4". Think about this for a moment, at 4" pocket openings, there's virtually no pocket shelf for a ball to sit on, meaning a ball can't rattle to a stop in the jaws of the pocket, second...the miter angles are at 135 degrees, or very close to that, which means the throat of the pocket is almost the same as the pocket mouth opening, so balls that are hit into the pocket facings are deflected clear to the back of the pocket, with almost no chance of being bounced across to the other side of the pocket, meaning the pocket is a small target, but the hallway the ball has to pass through to drop in the pocket is huge which means if you just get past the point to point opening of the corner pocket...the ball is GONE!

Why is this a "disadvantage"? So you're basically saying:

1. Balls shot down the rail -- even if they are hit so good that they don't touch the cushion at all during the way -- that hit the chiseled pocket facing in the throat of the pocket (which is the only target inside the pocket visible to the player shooting this shot from this angle), SHOULD NOT DROP, and should instead hang in the pocket.

2. The only way balls should pocket, is if they enter the pocket aperture at an angle as close to perpendicular to the aperture of the pocket. In other words -- if I may use an analogy -- the pocket apertures should have a deep enough "hallway" where the object ball needs to be standing directly in front of the entrance to the hallway to enter it at an angle close enough to parallel to the walls of the hallway. The object ball cannot enter the entrance of the hallway at an angle, and instead should just bobble and hang at the entrance.

If this is true -- and I'm asking you for your input / corrections / feedback here -- then I just don't "get" the logic behind this. My thinking is that with smaller pocket apertures (in relation to the size of the object balls, anyway), if you're accurate enough to hit an object ball cleanly into the pocket aperture -- regardless of entrance angle -- the ball should score. The key operative word here is "cleanly." Obviously, if one slops a ball down the rail and the ball touches the cushion on its way down, once it hits the pocket aperture's chiseled facing, perhaps that ball shouldn't score. But a cleanly-hit ball down the rail SHOULD score -- almost regardless of the power used.

I'm sure I'm not the only one bewildered by this "logic" that pockets should have deep-enough shelves for balls to hang up on, regardless of how well they are hit.

Care to explain?

-Sean <-- a reminder that this is not a sarcastic or malicious post, but rather trying to get to the bottom of rationale that escapes me

 

[Eric.]

Here's a thread to give some feedback on the TAR table:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=304808


Eric

 

[JB Cases]

He had 1 break and run on day 1 game 33 to be exact. Other than that he is just completely outmatched playing SVB. Last time he played Bartram if I'm not mistake, I could be, but it was to 100 and he could not see the finish line.

How bout this, DAZ is a great player, very great, but what he is great at is races to 9 or 11 when he has to face the guy only once. He tinkled all down his leg playing these TAR sessions against one guy for an extended period. However, he is one of the best tourney players on the face of the earth, no denying that.

Bottom line is, there is no one that is going to beat SVB playing day in day out playing 10 ball. His break is just way too good. And DAZ's break is not in the same zip code, nor is anyone elses.

That's what working 8 solid hours a day on your break gets you. Corey introduced the idea of perfecting the break, Shane perfected it.