Stupid Question
- Thread starter Boxcar
- Start date
I will go with the one with the longest shelf.
But assuming the shelf is the same, the two features sort of balance out.
The 139º pocket trim accepts balls rolling down the rail better than the 143º pocket.
But the reverse is true from shooting from places other than the rail the 4+1/2 pocket is simply larger than the 4+1/4 pocket.
Pretty close to break even--overall.
But assuming the shelf is the same, the two features sort of balance out.
The 139º pocket trim accepts balls rolling down the rail better than the 143º pocket.
But the reverse is true from shooting from places other than the rail the 4+1/2 pocket is simply larger than the 4+1/4 pocket.
Pretty close to break even--overall.
It’s actually a very good question. I would say as with most topics on here, you may not get much agreement in terms of the responses. I would say #1 is tougher - way more balls will get rejected out of the pocket even when they hit in to the pocket facing. If you compared 4-1/2” 143 to 4” 139, it then might be close to a toss up.
Last edited:
Yep, I think you are correct, the differences cancel each other out, but having played on a 4-1/2 with 141 degree facings for the last 2 years, I think I’d rather have the tighter pockets with the 139 degree facings. The 143 would be brutal down the rail, probably not even within specs. It would almost make me completely avoid anything down the rail.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The scale drawing below shows the 139° and 143° facing angles (yellow) compared with 135° parallel facings (white).
To help visualize the pocket size difference: If the 143° pocket points in the drawing are 4 1/2" apart, then the 139° pocket points in the drawing are less than 4 1/4" apart.
It's kinda an apples and oranges comparison, but I lean toward the 4° angle change being more important than the 1/4" size change.
pj
chgo
To help visualize the pocket size difference: If the 143° pocket points in the drawing are 4 1/2" apart, then the 139° pocket points in the drawing are less than 4 1/4" apart.
It's kinda an apples and oranges comparison, but I lean toward the 4° angle change being more important than the 1/4" size change.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Nice try, but the points of the pocket need to be at the stated distance (4+1/4 or 4+1/2)
For whatever it's worth, here are the WPA equipment specs on corner pocket angles:
Horizontal Pocket Cut Angle: The angle must be the same on both sides of a pocket entrance. The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the corner pocket entrance must be 142 degrees (+1). The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the side pocket entrance must be 104 degrees (+1).
I assume that the "+1" values all mean "+ or - 1".
Not sure what your trying to say but PJ’s statement is correct.
The size of the pocket has nothing to do with the angle. You could have a 5” Pocket with 150 degree angle or a 5” Pocket with 141 angle. You’d probably never get a ball to go in down the rail with 150 angle though.
JC
Coos Cues
Here is how Diamond cuts them on the pro pocket tables. Image courtesy of the infamous RKC.
Virtual buckets when the cloth is new and the balls are clean. Not so much later on. Even dirty balls go in the pocket down the rail at break speed.
![067 [800x600].jpg](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/402/402037-3f31e74628fd2941a7d940a250a6880f.jpg?hash=PzHnRij9KU "067 [800x600].jpg")
I agree that would be a more accurate illustration overall, but the difference in pocket size would still be as I described it.
pj
chgo