Cavernous Pockets...

L.S. Dennis

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
I remember years ago listening to Grady doing commentary on Accu-stats matches and him commenting on how the players were asking for tighter pockets instead of having to play on what Grady called 'cavernous' pockets used back then. At the time I didn't pay too much attention to this because it was what I was used to seeing at the time.

Last night I watched a Sigel/Davenport final from 1992 and I after watching these recent tournaments with 4 to 4 1/4 inch pockets I couldn't help but be amazed on how big those old pockets looked compared to what is used today. I have to admit it, Grady was right!
 
Last edited:
L.S. Dennis said:
I remember years ago listening to Grady doing commentary on Accu-stats matches and him commenting on how the players were asking for tighter pockets instead of having to play on what Grady called 'cavernous' pockets used back then. At the time I didn't pay too much attention to this because it was what I was used to seeing at the time.

Last night I watched a Siegel/Davenport final from 1992 and I after watching these recent tournaments with 4 to 4 1/4 inch pockets I couldn't help but be amazed on how big those old pockets looked compared to what is used today. I have to admit it, Grady was right!
Click to expand...
Standard GC pockets were 5" corners. With the short shelf they played easy for top players/pro. They were designed for poolrooms to make money. I wish my local spot would open some of our GC 4's up. We have ten NICE 4's: four have 4.5's and six in the 4.25ish range. ALL are too snug for recreational players. IMO two tight tables with the rest at LEAST 4.5 is a much better set-up. Most rooms make their money off beer-n-bangers.
 
couldnthinkof01 said:
I like the huge pockets at home, I'm down there whistling in balls like a stone cold cellar champion.
Click to expand...
Pool's supposed to be FUN. Unless you're a big tournament player/gambler bigger targets means more fun. I see a lot of people these days that think that pockets need to be no bigger than 4.25 and they can't run a rack if their life was ridin on it. 4.5" corners are a good compromise imo.
 
Last edited:
garczar said:
Pool's is supposed to be FUN. Unless you're a big tournament player/gambler bigger targets means more fun. I see a lot of people these days that think that pockets need to be no bigger than 4.25 and they can't run a rack if their life was ridin on it. 4.5" corners are a good compromise imo.
Click to expand...

Even bar boxes with 5" corner pockets can be fun in the right situation.
 
As long as I'm not shooting pool balls into snooker pockets, I don't care about pocket size. Shoot and adapt on different tables. I play on different sizes, cloth, pocket size on purpose. After 10 mins of adjustment, I'm pocketing balls consistently.

Pros these days are finding any way to complain about "why I didn't shoot every rack out when I did before 5 years ago". It's their errors not pocket size.
 
PoolIsScience said:
As long as I'm not shooting pool balls into snooker pockets, I don't care about pocket size. Shoot and adapt on different tables. I play on different sizes, cloth, pocket size on purpose. After 10 mins of adjustment, I'm pocketing balls consistently.

Pros these days are finding any way to complain about "why I didn't shoot every rack out when I did before 5 years ago". It's their errors not pocket size.
Click to expand...
Always reminds me of Earl and his no side pocket table....blah blah blah.... proceeds to get boned on it by Darren🤣🤣
 
Tougher and tougher conditions are part of the problem with pool halls today. Somewhat advanced players want equipment that gives them some separation. Absolute buckets aren't fun to play on. Then here comes true beginners. They quickly find out that balls don't fall in holes like they do on TV! This pool crap requires work and real effort to learn. "Let's go do something fun!" We just lost a group of would be beginners.

This is one of the issues I see with pool, it isn't easy to adjust conditions for player skill levels. Deep shelves and four or four and a quarter inch pockets are about as much fun for a beginner as an ice water enema!

If there could be a quick and easy adjustment for player skills I think pool would attract lesser skilled players. As it is widely varying skill levels are too obvious to all.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Tougher and tougher conditions are part of the problem with pool halls today. Somewhat advanced players want equipment that gives them some separation. Absolute buckets aren't fun to play on. Then here comes true beginners. They quickly find out that balls don't fall in holes like they do on TV! This pool crap requires work and real effort to learn. "Let's go do something fun!" We just lost a group of would be beginners.

This is one of the issues I see with pool, it isn't easy to adjust conditions for player skill levels. Deep shelves and four or four and a quarter inch pockets are about as much fun for a beginner as an ice water enema!

If there could be a quick and easy adjustment for player skills I think pool would attract lesser skilled players. As it is widely varying skill levels are too obvious to all.

Hu
Click to expand...
I think most players under 700 Fargo would build more confidence and pattern play on bigger pockets.
 
I think they need a table with retractable pocket facings for all the whiners I play. You push a button, the thick pocket facing retract and you have 6 inch buckets for them. They have the kiddie rails in bowling so balls won’t go in the gutter and I think pool needs something similar
 
I don't think the real casual players would know if a pocket was 5" or 4.5", they miss so often that missing a bit more won't be anything they notice. Heck, I have seen someone mix a set of pool balls and snooker size balls in the same rack and play for like 30 minutes without noticing that something was a bit odd till I walked over and explained what they did LOL Those players would not notice that the pockets are smaller compared to some other place. To them a table is a table like the others and a cue is the same as any other cue.

I like the 4.5" pockets, small enough for making you pay for a miss (no hitting 1 diamond from the pocket and having it bounce in the hole), wide enough for mid level players that fill the tournaments. The place I play in is filled with 300-450 Fargo rated regulars and for the most part they all wish the pockets there were tighter. Even they feel there are a lot of un-earned balls that go in.
 
I’m torn. I’ve always loved the challenge of playing on 4 to 4.25” pockets. I recently got a Diamond with standard 4.5” pro cut pockets and, while it definitely plays more difficult than a GC with 4.5” pockets, I just feel like there’s something missing. It actually plays about the same, difficulty wise, as my old GC 3 with 4.25” pockets. The cushions on the Diamond are much livelier than the GC. That and the deeper shelf makes up for the bigger pockets. Still, it’s playing too soft for my taste, with the new cloth and all.

Now, the pool room I play at just tightened the pockets on their Diamond “pit table” to around 4.125”, and it plays GREAT. But I have so many people tell me it’s a waste. “Don’t do it”. “Pro cut is plenty tight”. “It changes the game too much”. I don’t know. I can see both sides of the debate, and there are legitimate points on both sides. But I always tend to lean more towards tighter pockets. I genuinely enjoy the game more that way, even though it can be extremely frustrating at times.
 
Here are photos of the pockets at newly opened Sierra Billiards in Fresno that has both 4 1/2” & 4 1/4” CP.
Personally speaking, 4 1/2 “ CP seem acceptable; 4 1/4” are almost ideal but I’d still like to play on 4” CP.

4.75” are too big or heaven forbid, 5” CP, well, that’s for new players to the game of pool. Enjoyment and
a sense of satisfaction from pocketing balls is more motivating to a new player vs. a more seasoned player.
 

Attachments

  • 1F270531-2F01-4B9B-BCD8-3F79EB09C6D2.jpeg
    1F270531-2F01-4B9B-BCD8-3F79EB09C6D2.jpeg
    180.7 KB · Views: 108
  • C921D0CB-0D12-427C-A081-FD4C1530A76B.jpeg
    C921D0CB-0D12-427C-A081-FD4C1530A76B.jpeg
    106 KB · Views: 111
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top