They are calling the Diamond style funnel throat 4.5 tight enough. Never played on a Diamond but played on Murreys with similarly deep throated 4.5 pockets. I'd call those the upper limit on pocket size.
Small pockets ruining the game
- Thread starter smiling_Hans
- Start date
Pool and snooker is a little like apples and oranges. I played on a snooker table enough to know they are only a little harder than pool tables. Most of the game is played in a three by six area if things go well for somebody. Smaller balls and playing area offset the bigger pockets and balls in pool. When snooker champions tried to move into American pool they played OK but definitely second tier to the established champion pool players.
One thing, the title of this thread starts with a false assumption or question. Tighter pockets don't ruin the game, they do change it however. Is it a change that will benefit pool? Personally I don't think so!
Pool is pool and snooker ain't. I like both but I don't want pool to become more like snooker, or snooker more like pool for that matter. I don't want buckets on snooker tables or keyholes on pool tables.
Hu
We are mostly talking as if pocket width point to point is the only variable. Other things can make folks think they are gods pocketing on four inch pockets or think they are bums on four and a half inch pockets.
I got on some almost new Diamonds that a local beginner had covered. Those weren't tight pockets but spit balls like they were three and a half inch pockets or less. I located which tables he had covered and wouldn't play on them. An OK guy, just not a table mechanic yet if ever.
I think in twenty-five years or less the most common table in pool halls will be a tight pocketed seven footer. Not what I want, just seems to be the wave of the future. Shelves and relief cuts can make those play tough or easy.
Hu
i like underdogs too, but tennis? by the time you're a working stiff you have no chance to achieve anything in tennis.
soufi's WC run last year was extraordinary. it can happen, but it will always be rare. he got a lot of rolls, and that's probably a prerequisite.
…and one 9-foot Diamond with 4.25” pockets that’s pretty much just a one-pocket table.
sellingboe
Active member
And, at 4.5 or 4.25 you'd see more banks and offensive kick shots. While I admire surgically precise cut shots, I'd like to see more banking and kicking. It's not the same as DCC bank shot competition.
yep. i started in 78-79 and all GC's, unless shimmed, had 5" corners. they were commercial tables meant for fun and $$ for the room owner. i have no issues with tight tables just not a whole room full of them.
Last edited:
There needs to be a good, fast, and comparatively cheap way to vary pocket size. Corners in particular that might be possible to do with an insert. I have shot a few shots at pocket reducers and that isn't what I am talking about at all.
Some thoughts are a variable depth shelf or a reducer that goes in the pocket from the back. Probably either would result in more jawed balls so advanced testing required!
I don't know, if I had the answers I would be a rich man.
Several fairly nearby places have opened like that. The nine footer is the lone big table. I took a family member to a place like that and automatically got on the nine footer. Only later did I consider they might have preferred a seven footer when they commented I had kicked their butt. I thought I had been pretty gentle but jumping a bar box player to a nine footer is pretty rough from the start.
Hu
Plug in cushions. Corners could easily be cut with jaws commensurate with the aperture.
Necessity is...
Since the era of World tours (i.e. WNT and PBS) started few years ago, the recent UK Open with zero 800/top 50 Fargorate player in last 4 was a "black swan" event. It will not happen again for a long time. If it happens again, something is very wrong some folks are doing a 1991 ICC
snookered_again
Well-known member
probably a reference to adding one or two extra rail facings in order to reduce pocket width.. Of course one can simply use thicker rubber , but many are sold in little packets of a dozen by the suppliers of cushions etc for that purpose.. I've never seen ones offered that are double the thickness.. one could use rubber of a different hardness ( durometer) if they desired to.. shim could also be a reference to wood used to lengthen rails as noted in this older post. the word "shim" is pretty common so could possibly be used correctly but in different ways with the writer taking a different interpretation.
thing here is that the ball can strike the end of the facing, so there is some benefit to simply cutting the rubber longer, if you were also replacing the rubber. having the ball strike the end of stacked and glued together shims isn't really desirable, but possible.
my interpretation of it is that is someone said it's double shimmed, it may mean they removed the cloth and extended the rails by adding two facings.
some add shims on top as a temporary measure, its possible to do , eg: just for practice.
My 1915 or so table had an option to buy pocket blockers, to temporarily eliminate pockets to play carom billiards or similar or it could be ordered as a "carom table" - no pockets, or "pool" meaning it had pockets. pool back then may have referred to "straight pool" I believe snooker increased in popularity in the 30's although maybe was invented prior. a table we often play on was from the early 30's and many have said it was actually designed for english billiards, the pockets, particularly the corners, are extremely difficult. we have players missing shots that have a wealth of experience on high end newer snooker tables with regulation pockets. It increases the challenge and weather or not you'd like that is more of a personal preference unless you are setting up a table to target some regulation dimensions.
wood can shrink over time, the wood shrinks more across grain than with the grain but on an antique table it is possible for the rails to shrink slightly while the slate is "rock stable".. I'd guess maybe 1/16" over the length of a 6' rail , might depend upon the wood type etc.. but wood can shrink along the grain over 100 years or so, somewhat. if you closely analyze antiques you can see occurrences of this sort of movement.
the term shim , in itself just means
"a washer or thin strip of material used to align parts, make them fit, or reduce wear."
so for example if the base frame were a bit low you may add a shim to help support the slate.. that would of course not relate to pocket size.
if you look at this thread, others have contributed..
https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/shimming-pockets.126186/
Pierre Shakes
Registered
Nobody seems to care about the poolhall owner. How many different sizes are we supposed to have? And we are supposed to change them out whenever you decide?
Brunswick made 5” corners in 1845. The BCA rule book had always supported that. Who has the authority to change that?
Does the non-affcinado public care? I get new tables at 4.5” because The Players prefer it, but many tables at my 24 table poolhall are still 5”. My clientele is 90% dates and folks who have never run out. I can testify from 42 years experience: they might think they need to try harder, but they won’t imagine it is the pockets. But if they were 4" they would have no fun at all and I would go out of business.
Diamond went with 4.5” thirty-plus years ago to satisfy pro players who were tired of being beaten by local guys who were merely very good. Now we have people demanding 4.25”, 4.0”, 3.9”(?) and Chinese snooker openings. Every damn tournament is different. This reflects the political chaos involved in overthrowing the rule of law. "You ain’t the boss of me” cries every child.
Brunswick made 5” corners in 1845. The BCA rule book had always supported that. Who has the authority to change that?
Does the non-affcinado public care? I get new tables at 4.5” because The Players prefer it, but many tables at my 24 table poolhall are still 5”. My clientele is 90% dates and folks who have never run out. I can testify from 42 years experience: they might think they need to try harder, but they won’t imagine it is the pockets. But if they were 4" they would have no fun at all and I would go out of business.
Diamond went with 4.5” thirty-plus years ago to satisfy pro players who were tired of being beaten by local guys who were merely very good. Now we have people demanding 4.25”, 4.0”, 3.9”(?) and Chinese snooker openings. Every damn tournament is different. This reflects the political chaos involved in overthrowing the rule of law. "You ain’t the boss of me” cries every child.
What you do is a different genre than actual pool. You make it work however you need it to. It's defacto your hustle.
Georgiacue
Member
For years I played on Brunswick, Sam Hall any table from back in the 90's and early 2000's. YOu have to shoot and play these diamonds differently. You can't hit the short rail or long rail on the way to the pocket. If you do it better be slow rolling.
That is exactly why I made a few comments. Most people in a hall apa or tap can't even run out the 4.75s and 5's. We've got pool hall owners here getting rid of all the bigger pocket tables and replacing them with 4.5 diamonds. YOu gotta shoot the diamond tables a bunch different than the 4.75s and 5s. That 1/4" difference in pocket is huge especially on a diamond with a deeper pockets.
New people want to pocket balls. keep them encouraged to come back. Get a little bit of success in apa or tap or bca etc. That encourages them to come back to your establishment, buy cues, buy food, drinks, cases, chalk etc. Thats what grows the industry long term in my opinion. Your discouraging building the sport long term IMHO by bringing in the smaller pockets. I do think you need both size pockets in a establishment. A few for the better players and keep some for the newbs.
Murreys in the 70s were very similar. Two balls would stick and a lone ball could be tucked entirely in the jaws. No you couldn't graze the cushions on the way in but slamming the pockets was normal. I was banging out 3s within 2 years.
IMO, the Diamond table indeed changed the game, but for the better. As polished balls & quality cloth became more common, pocketing on a typical 9’ GC just wasn’t challenging anymore. A good sized room SHOULD likely have both though, to keep beginners & bangers happy. Those that think the orig./standard Diamond isn’t difficult enough (and can stand frustration), should just take a tray of pool balls and play on the 10’ american snooker table (and start a golf ring game
).
Pierre Shakes
Registered
I guess “actual pool” requires a hall to have enough completely identical tables to have a tournament with pocket openings that follow the accepted standard . Since there is no standard, then there is no “actual” pool anywhere.
My “hustle” is an “actual" business and I’m finally getting rich (by my modest expectations). You know: fancy car and waterfront house.
My target market is people who have enough money to pay extra for a visually and ‘culturally’ interesting environment. So the variety of styles of beautiful furniture, the fifteen different colours of cloth, and the labour intensive artwork everywhere attract many non-players, especially women.
That nines are 75% of my 24 tables, is not just because I believe that is the “actual” size, but the clueless paying public clearly prefers them.
Players prefer them, of course.
And they like that ten of the nines are technical tables on which our tournaments are played: Rasson, Sam (think Predator), Unik, etc.
And I only use powder blue cloth on them because the balls (Duramith, mind you) stand out better than tournament blue.
And every visiting pro has commented positively on the upkeep of the cloth.
And even the actual Players like all this.
See the Virtual Tour at PeacockBilliards.com
I saw the Youtube. Gorgeous decorum. It's a hustle. The target market is probably what the thread title refers to lol. Still, no such metaphor is specified and when it comes to pool, I take a decidedly literal bent.
So, are you <saving pool> ? Isn't the high priced crowd just trying to own the world? This belongs in NPR.
