Pocket Facing Angles - Why Not Parallel?

Bob Jewett said:
Does he have a diagram of the corner pockets?
Click to expand...

Yes, although I would not want to play on this table!

1676174297394.png
 
Patrick Johnson said:
With no facings in the way I think the pocket mouth could be 3” or even less (down-the-rail opening 2”) and still accept all comers.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand the "no facings" comment. My experience is that facings, depending on the durometer, make a pocket play easier.
Hitting the softness of rail material would cause more balls to rattle. That was one of the problems with the Olhausen tables, outside of the pocket angle being flared too much the facings were very soft.
Like I said, maybe I misunderstood where you were going with this.
 
dendweller said:
Not sure I understand the "no facings" comment. My experience is that facings, depending on the durometer, make a pocket play easier.
Hitting the softness of rail material would cause more balls to rattle. That was one of the problems with the Olhausen tables, outside of the pocket angle being flared too much the facings were very soft.
Like I said, maybe I misunderstood where you were going with this.
Click to expand...

This. PJ says the pocket could be 3" if you only had dimensions for a 2" ball. Pool balls would still go.
straightline said:
broken record:
.25 graph paper, no math...
IMG_0210.jpg


No facings. You could angle in for structure but other than that, this seems to be the minimum all access aperture. So simple, Me figured it. Is there a spec for minimum all access aperture on regular pockets?
Click to expand...
See? No facings just opening and drop off.
 
you have to have facings. without them balls would destroy the rail ends. a friend re-covered a table a while back and the previous 'fixer' had removed the facings. the ends of the rails were beat to a pulp.
 
dendweller said:
I think they are talking about eliminating the end rail angle all together, the rail just stops with their noses 3 inches apart. Then again, I could be mistaken again.
Click to expand...
No that's it. I'm the only one advocating this type of pocket although it's just the extreme of paralleling the jaws for small apertures. No facings allow minimum apertures while allowing rail shots and indeed all shots at any speed. IMO an adaptation of this premise would vastly improve the game of snooker.
 
Is this where we get when we get bored with pool... Pockets and Forceful break... Rails someone need to go after the rails, on and on... Guy
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Pocket specs say the back (throat) of the pocket opening should be narrower than the front (mouth), apparently so the pocket will reject some balls that hit the facing at the "wrong" speed/angle. My question: the ball has to get past the mouth to hit a facing - why isn't that good enough?

pj <- way too much time
chgo
Click to expand...


Somebody should tell BC. He had them the opposite on the table for Shaws run.
 
sparkle84 said:
Not about to argue but I saw some of the video and it sure looked that way.
Click to expand...
It's hard to visualize accurately from a video or picture unless the view is from directly above the pocket - for instance, if the view is from the throat side of the pocket, then the nearest (throat) part of the opening will appear larger.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top