WPBL (Bonus Ball) - Pocket Cut

iusedtoberich said:
I kind of think we are all arguing over minutia. The cut of the pocket isn't going to change how popular pool is in the US. None of us have the answer to that (we'd be rich if we did), but it certainly is not the pocket cut.

The cut of the BB table is just for the BB table. No one is going to be going out and spending hundreds of dollars for new cushions and a mechanic to make them this way on their home table. None of the pool halls will do the same either. And of the remaining US designed/built tables, I highly doubt any of them will take their decades of experience and change the designs.

Lets just sit back and watch the game.
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
Luxury said:
I want one. Has anyone ever owned one or played with one? Any reviews?

thx.
Click to expand...

LMAO.....they came out with something similar back in the late 70s or early 80s. You had to push the shaft down in to the butt to load the thing..
We would break with the thing....LMAO....we would stroke the stick and at the last second pull the trigger and try and time the burst of energy when the stick sprung open.

Sometimes you would do it perfectly and the balls would explode....LMAO

Didn't last long....if you think that's funny.....you should have seen the first jump cue.

Mark Gregory
 
Last edited:
basically it comes down to this...

If the ob hits the facing and doesn't drop that a problem...period...

If you hit the ball good enough to hit the facing, it should drop.

If it down drop when the ball hits the facing that's a designflaw.

Jaden
 
Bob Dixon said:
I think people are hitting fast shots, down the rail and otherwise, and not realizing that the OB is touching the rail/point just before the pocket. Or they realize it and think it should go in anyway.

On a Diamond, per RKCs example of lining up several frozen balls on the rail and shooting it hard, there is nothing wrong with the pocket if the ball goes in. It doesn't "jaw" when it's accurate.

If weaker players are having trouble with accuracy then they should just reduce their ball speed, not change everyone else's playing conditions to adjust to them.
Click to expand...

A few weeks ago there was a short thread about the Diamond pockets rejecting/hanging balls. I chimed in because of how often I hang up a ball on my own Diamond, especially when shooting with moderate to high speed.

Don't get me wrong, I have always loved this table, but I thought that was just a quirk of this particular design.

So, naturally, I offered to shoot some slow motion video to demonstrate what I was experiencing.

But, Bob, just like you said above, I ended up with only two types of video clips:

1. Balls that contacted the rail before the pocket facing, and didn't go in.

2. Balls that did NOT contact a rail before the pocket facing, and DID go in.

I was shocked (and never did post a video in that thread). There were several shots I rattled while filming this, where I would have sworn I hit them good, only to have my own slow motion video later prove undeniably that I didn't hit the ball as good as I thought I did. It's sometimes VERY hard to see in real time.

There are two things I learned from this experience. First, I gained a LOT of confidence in my table. If I rattle a ball, it was my own damn fault, not the table's fault. Maybe I didn't miss by much, but I absolutely didn't hit it perfectly.

Second, I am so used to other tables accepting poorly hit balls, that I thought my Diamond was unfairly rejecting shots. As it turns out, the Diamond was just being brutally fair.

Since then, I've really increased my accuracy and focus when playing on my Diamond, and I accept responsibility when I miss a ball, no matter how good of a shot it appeared to be. My pocketing has improved a ton on my table, which makes the pool hall tables in my league truly feel like buckets.

Side note:
The only thing I still don't really like about the Diamond is the number of balls that rattle, but then stay in the jaws. For that reason, I can totally understand Nathan's desire to make the pockets either accept a ball or completely reject them, with nothing in between.

Anyway, excellent post, Bob. You are exactly right about this.

-Blake

PS, I just tried Glen's 4 ball combo test about a dozen times, and the ball went in every single time. This whole thread, combined with my recent video experience, makes me think of Paul Newman at the beginning of The Hustler, when he's checking out the table at Ames:

"Nice, clean pocket drop."

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370564908.623759.jpg

http://www.hark.com/clips/pwcdskxvjs-nice-clean-pocket-drop
 
Last edited:
I also wanted to say that this has been one of the most enjoyable debates I've read in a while. Excellent thread!

Thanks to all for your knowledge, opinions, and participation!

-Blake
 
What is the smallest possible pocket size? I think ~ 3 1/5 in? I think that pocket size should have parallel openings. Then from that size pocket openings should change regarding how much pockets size increase :eek:

hate my english :sorry: (specially with few beers) :D
 
At the end of the day we aren't playing on the same equipment we had in 1850 or even 1950. All sports evolve in terms of the equipment and the playing field.

What matters in this instance is what do the pros think and frankly if the hated Nathan's experiment then 30-40 pros whining about it would be enough to make him give in. When you have the cream of the crop there to not only discuss this with but also to thoroughly test it out you can't ask for better conditions.

Also one of the BB players is a top shelf table mechanic in his own right, trained by one of the best.

So my thought on all this is that through it all they wil find what they really like that's challenging but not ridiculously tough as to spoil the entertainment factor.
 
After watching most of tonight's match, I would have to say those pockets are ridiculously easy. Too easy.
 
So what size pockets does a Russian Pyramid table have and are they cut like the BB table?
 
Bob Dixon said:
From the OP:
"I've been a firm believer that the current pocket cut in North America is one of the reason why pool is suffering here."

and

"The trick is to shrink the pocket, push the facings back towards parallel so they're around 138 (rather than 141-142), and then ditch the shelf."

Quite clearly the communicated objective is to make the pockets easier.

You claim it makes them harder. That's going to attract more people to pool?

The pocket change crowd here is talking in every direction at once.

When do we have to start changing our pool cues?
Click to expand...

Here's the full quote:

The trick is to shrink the pocket, push the facings back towards parallel so they're around 138 (rather than 141-142), and then ditch the shelf. A ball either goes in, or it misses entirely. No more pocket speed or jawed balls. If you put the ball into the tiny opening, it goes in. If you miss, it leaves the pocket area entirely, thus eliminating jawed balls almost entirely.
Click to expand...

The "tiny opening" portion makes it clear that they are not making the pockets easier, just easier than a diamond with equivalent sized pockets, although I have never seen a diamond with 3 7/8 pockets, so that is a moot point. The objective is "clearly" not to make the pockets easier. It is to make them more predictable. If the pockets are still to easy for you, I am sure they can reduce the opening even further.

These pockets are obviously not going to be promoted to your average league player. Slightly wider versions of the same cut would do just fine for them, just like golf pros have their own tees.


YubaCushion said:
Arguing design doesn't change the fact that the pockets were made so balls that are close drop, and don't wedge. Making them shooter friendly. As for the different pocket sizes, 3.875 and 4.500 is a difference of .312 per side. That's a minor adjustment not a different animal.
Click to expand...

Shooter friendly, yes. That's the whole point of this thread. Pockets should be shooter friendly. They shouldn't punish you for going after certain shots. "Easier" is only relative to pockets size. If you dont think .312 per side makes a HUGE difference, you are either Ronnie O'Sullivan or you are just acting like its no big deal to artificially further your argument when EVERYBODY on this thread knows that its a big deal.
 
Last edited:
When a ball hits the tit of a side pocket at about a 45º angle and then proceeds to fall into that side pocket - the pocket is just plain wrong. Shots that should have been misses were going in anyway.
 
Underclocked said:
When a ball hits the tit of a side pocket at about a 45º angle and then proceeds to fall into that side pocket - the pocket is just plain wrong. Shots that should have been misses were going in anyway.
Click to expand...

The side pockets arent cut any different. Same angle, just 1/2" smaller.

Somewhat puts it into perspective of how hard it is to judge as a viewer, and how tough these pockets really are compared to what people *think* they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top