I thought he shot the ball off the rack. I guess I’m talking of a different shot.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Eagle Eye Takes Aim at 14.1 High Runs
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
I thought he shot the ball off the rack. I guess I’m talking of a different shot.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
You couldn't afford to hire me so what difference does it make to you
A 142-143° facing angle (WPA specs) on a 2" cushion reduces the opening 3/4" from mouth to throat. Given what you say above about throat width, it's impossible to have a 5" mouth and facing angles less than 142-143° - with smaller (more parallel) angles and that mouth width the cushions wouldn't reach the ends of the rails on either side.
pj
chgo
Thats right, but a CG3 uses a pocket casting, and that's a whole different story.
kanzzo
hobby player
the table is made as easy as possible to enable huge runs. Table Difficulty Factor would be something like 0.84
But all the huge runs were made on easy tables and since there are no regulations, what pockets have to look like (except for some personal opinions)...
It's a very easy GC III with new cloth but still less then 5 inch pockets.
Approved by me and obviously by the players that played so far...
From this it looks like John's table and this event table are pretty equal on pocket size.
Did you do the pocket work on them, if so what are the miter angles?
Less than 5" pockets? Seems like you guys measure pocket size like you keep track of the scoring. Lou showed this picture claiming 5" pockets, so what are they really?
Last edited:
See how far back the miter angle is at the throat of the pocket, it don't even come out past the pocket liner, which means even the pocket liner has a smaller throat than the pocket facing have at the back of the throat. With a stock 5" corner pocket, the pocket liner fits behind the pocket facing, but on this pocket, the end of the rail right there is to wide to sit in front of the pocket liner.
Personally I don't care about the pockets on the table. Mosconis record was set on large pockets and so was John Schmidts. Now people are trying to move the goalposts to avoid the record getting broken...Also the whole question is rather bad. If he WERE playing on a Diamond, he might not have played the shots that way, so it's not like the table "saved" him on most of those shots. I think can remember one breakshot that wobbled in on his 397 I believe. That's one shot that may be an example of an actual "save by pocket design". Otherwise, it's hard to single out particular shots. I believe it was the breakshot on rack number 21, severe cut on the 14. (2:13:57).
HOWEVER there are several shots that wouldn't have been possible to shoot in a high percentage way on a standard Diamond or Rasson. Most of the shallow angle side pocket shots, for instance. The side pockets on Rassons are just stupid and make the side pocket shots nearly useless. Diamonds are only marginally better and still bad.
Most peoples perceptions are skewed, anyways, because they are playing on worn cloth and humid conditions. Under the light, with new cloth, most tables play way easier than the typical pool hall table. Lights (or a properly ac'ed room) makes sure the ball slides instead of hanging up. Also, many, if not most, pool hall tables have cupped facings, beaten to shit, that will reject perfectly good shots if they have any speed or spin.
Last edited:
Doubtful anyone on this forum can afford a man with your "principles".You couldn't afford to hire me so what difference does it make to you
I personally don't care if they're playing with 6" corner pockets. What bothers me is BS'ing the viewing audience into believing something that isn't true just to cover up the fact that the pockets have artificially been made to take the balls much easier than the claimed STOCK pockets ever would!
I find all this bickering over the table specs to be unnecessary. The pocket sizes were measured and disclosed prior to the beginning of this event. This table falls within BCA recommended table specifications and offers a legitimate test of 14.1 skills. It's easy to see how it's playing by watching a few racks.
Did anyone hear them mention what the pocket facing angles were during the just-completed Arizona event? Of course not, because no-one ever does that during any event.
Those who feel they need to know the pocket facing angles to be able to put the runs made in a proper perspective are, in my opinion, blowing unnecessary smoke here. Sit back and enjoy this great event, which is a private event to which you've all been invited to view on stream for free.
Bobby and Lou, keep up the good work.
Did anyone hear them mention what the pocket facing angles were during the just-completed Arizona event? Of course not, because no-one ever does that during any event.
Those who feel they need to know the pocket facing angles to be able to put the runs made in a proper perspective are, in my opinion, blowing unnecessary smoke here. Sit back and enjoy this great event, which is a private event to which you've all been invited to view on stream for free.
Bobby and Lou, keep up the good work.
Lou, thanks for your honesty and for your promotion of 14.1 - the game I grew up playing and loving!
I disagree. They clearly disclosed the measurements and since there is no actual standard in pool, other than the BCA specs, which apparently nobody gives a rats derriere about, here we are. If the BCA specs were to be strictly agreed to for all tournaments, I'd be on your side in this. But they aren't, so...
Thanks, Stu.
Regrettably, there are some folks that will not let up. We knew this going in and are prepared to deal with it as best we can. In any case we will not lose any sleep over it -- there is more exciting pool coming. Anyone that wants to attempt to throw cold water on it is wasting their time. Fun things are coming.
Lou Figueroa
Thank you for understanding, Chris.
Lou Figueroa
the PR guy is always
the first one to get fired : -)