New cloth effects on banks?

[Biloxi Boy]

Where would that end?? Pocket size too? Exact pocket angles? Cloth color too?

People who ground their teeth on GC's will continue to say Diamonds bank wrong until the last player of the era kicks the bucket. The new players who ground their teeth on Diamonds will say GC's bank wrong because they go too long. Its just a changing of the guard. Search

Why change it? Was there some great hue and cry from the hinterland that GCs suffered fundamental issues with banking? Opeds in National Billiards News or The Snap decrying inherent errors in GC's cushions?

I was taught at an early age that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It has stood me in good stead. Like it or not, in the absence of official rules, Brunswick had established the standards and the standards had been accepted. Many other areas or disciplines have such practices, or conventions. Departing from established and accepted measures without good cause is a comment on the quality of thinking that went into Diamonds.

I'll ask it again, what was it about GC's banking that required correcting?

What would have been wrong with Diamonds banking like GCs?

Has anyone ever argued that Diamonds bank better than GCs?

 

[mikemosconi]

I would say that Brunswick in the 1960s attempted to create mass appeal for pocket billiards and cue sport participation to a very broad range of age and skill level.
Diamond, on the other hand, went after the more seasoned hard core players and those aspiring to be at a higher level in the game - banking (no pun intended) on that group influencing room owners that the Diamond table was the future of the game - it looks like Diamond won out.
Did this switch to mostly 41/2 pockets and blazing fast cushions harm overall participation numbers for the game - I can’t say - but I do know that if I were a 15 year old again and walked into a room where I was immediately facing pro playing conditions - I probably would have never adopted the game as one of my favorite past times - and I have easily contributed more than $100,000 to the sport in my lifetime for tables, cues, table time, and everything else related to the game.

 

[oscargrouch]

In my experience cushions bank shorter if they are low. Cushions are complicated with varying rubber profiles, heights, materials, mounting angles,....

As far as the "correct" rebound angle, I think most people expect whatever they learned on and if that was before 1990 it was probably on Gold Crowns. They were the standard for a long time.

Seems like there should be a standard, like a rolling ball hit from a rail should rebound at an equal angle if rolling at the speed that will return it exactly to the starting rail. Did Brunswick have target math for what they wanted? Did Diamond? Or is it just, meh, that seems to work.

 

[Biloxi Boy]

I would say that Brunswick in the 1960s attempted to create mass appeal for pocket billiards and cue sport participation to a very broad range of age and skill level.
Diamond, on the other hand, went after the more seasoned hard core players and those aspiring to be at a higher level in the game - banking (no pun intended) on that group influencing room owners that the Diamond table was the future of the game - it looks like Diamond won out.
Did this switch to mostly 41/2 pockets and blazing fast cushions harm overall participation numbers for the game - I can’t say - but I do know that if I were a 15 year old again and walked into a room where I was immediately facing pro playing conditions - I probably would have never adopted the game as one of my favorite past times - and I have easily contributed more than $100,000 to the sport in my lifetime for tables, cues, table time, and everything else related to the game.

Better yet, if I'd taken the cute girl from school out for an afternoon of pool and Buds and run into ratcheted down tables, we would not have had a whole lot of fun. Maybe though, in the grand scheme of things, that's why bar boxes were created -- having fun, drinking beer, playing pool. So am I to conclude that Diamonds took all the fun out of pool and left it for only the deadly serious pros? To keep the Friday night, double dating crew, were pool hall owners forced to then resort to bar boxes?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Seems like there should be a standard, like a rolling ball hit from a rail should rebound at an equal angle if rolling at the speed that will return it exactly to the starting rail. Did Brunswick have target math for what they wanted? Did Diamond? Or is it just, meh, that seems to work.

I think Michael Phelan (who started a company that eventually ended up as Brunswick), figured out a lot of table design around 1850. I think he likely went for what seemed to work. Here is some info from Wikipedia.

Phelan was determined to produce an American billiard table that would become the standard model for the whole world. He visited Europe in the fall of 1851, and on his return, in 1852, he had the idea of starting a model billiard-table factory. He left the East Coast in the fall of 1854, and arrived in San Francisco, where he opened an elegant billiard hall which immediately became one of the chief points of interest of the city. Phelan continued his success as a player and was again pronounced unconquerable.[1] In 1854, he invented a new cushion, which was noted for its elastic and lasting qualities.[3] To assist with aim, he added diamonds to the table.[4] Tobias O'Connor and Hugh William Collender manufactured some of the first tables as part of a distinct business, and, in 1854, Phelan gained an interest in the manufacturing business, with the company name changed to Phelan & Collender.[5] On April 12, 1859, Phelan won the first U.S. national billiards championship.[6][7] The company was dissolved by Collender in 1871 after Phelan's death.[8]​

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here's a previous discussion about what causes balls to bank short -- speed or follow ...

quick banking question

does drawing the cb shorten up an ob bank because the cb draw transfers follow to the ob?

forums.azbilliards.com

 

[mikemosconi]

Better yet, if I'd taken the cute girl from school out for an afternoon of pool and Buds and run into ratcheted down tables, we would not have had a whole lot of fun. Maybe though, in the grand scheme of things, that's why bar boxes were created -- having fun, drinking beer, playing pool. So am I to conclude that Diamonds took all the fun out of pool and left it for only the deadly serious pros? To keep the Friday night, double dating crew, were pool hall owners forced to then resort to bar boxes?

Well I think that rooms converting from 9 foot to 7 foot tables has more to do with what is now left as a pool playing community willing to pay room rates- it is mostly the league crowds that have encouraged the switch to 7 footers. Also, space considerations - money is made on drinks and food more than table rental income- so, less room needed for smaller tables gives you more room for bands, food and drinking tables, or simply more pool tables if desired.
I see even the 7 foot tables now being dominated by Diamond pro cut bar boxes- that is apparently what the players are asking for- so it is going in that direction
Smaller square footage being rented also equals the desire for smaller tables - commercial rents are high, as are utilities for HVAC.

The desire or ability or thought to get either family or youth participation in pool here in the U.S. from a room owner or table manufacturer standpoint had died many decades ago.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here's a previous discussion about what causes balls to bank short -- speed or follow ...

quick banking question

does drawing the cb shorten up an ob bank because the cb draw transfers follow to the ob?

forums.azbilliards.com

I don’t see mention there of the “topspin” put on the OB by the rail hitting it above center. I think that limits the lengthening effect of follow on the ball, and older cloth with more rail friction should limit more. But then more cloth friction will also cause the follow to “grab” sooner, lengthening the rebound…

Too complex for my little brain…

pj
chgo

 

[3kushn]

In my experience cushions bank shorter if they are low. Cushions are complicated with varying rubber profiles, heights, materials, mounting angles,....

As far as the "correct" rebound angle, I think most people expect whatever they learned on and if that was before 1990 it was probably on Gold Crowns. They were the standard for a long time.

But I learned on AMF and AE Schmidt.
Maybe that's why I gave it up?

 

[Zerksies]

Speed does not shorten the angle directly. It is the follow or lack of it on the banking ball that shortens the angle. This is an important distinction.

This is basic pool knowledge speed compresses the rail and makes the bank shorter.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This is basic pool knowledge speed compresses the rail and makes the bank shorter.

Try the test described in the other thread. Then you will see that the "rail compression" idea is wrong.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I don’t see mention there of the “topspin” put on the OB by the rail hitting it above center. ...

You often see a ball curving back towards the cushion if it goes into the cushion rolling smoothly. You can get significant curve in the other direction but only under very special conditions.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Seems like there should be a standard, like a rolling ball hit from a rail should rebound at an equal angle if rolling at the speed that will return it exactly to the starting rail....

I think a reasonable goal for cushion design is that the "double the diamond" system for one-rail kicks should be accurate. That's a rolling ball without sidespin shot "through" the diamond. Most tables are at least close to that up to 6:3 or so.

 

[measureman]

You are the self-proclaimed best player at your local room and don't know the answer to this?

I am not the best player in the room,I'm one of the better players but not the best and I have never said I was the best.

 

[freds]

Try the test described in the other thread. Then you will see that the "rail compression" idea is wrong.

Don't know what the other thread is, but forget about speed for a minute and think about (or better, try) a sliding ball vs a rolling ball.

An object ball 1" from the rail will bank more or less the same at any speed.

Note: not addressed to you, Bob

 

[fastone371]

Why change it? Was there some great hue and cry from the hinterland that GCs suffered fundamental issues with banking? Opeds in National Billiards News or The Snap decrying inherent errors in GC's cushions?

I was taught at an early age that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It has stood me in good stead. Like it or not, in the absence of official rules, Brunswick had established the standards and the standards had been accepted. Many other areas or disciplines have such practices, or conventions. Departing from established and accepted measures without good cause is a comment on the quality of thinking that went into Diamonds.

I'll ask it again, what was it about GC's banking that required correcting?

What would have been wrong with Diamonds banking like GCs?

Has anyone ever argued that Diamonds bank better than GCs?

I highly doubt that Diamond set out to change the way tables banked, there are table mechanics out there today who don't understand rail thickness vs sub rail angle and its effects on banking. There is no table that banks properly or incorrectly, only different. A GC banks different than a Diamond and both of those bank different than a Valley and the list goes on. Im sure almost every table manufacturer has their idea of what is a properly playing pool table. Its just a difference in how they play, make an adjustment, its not a big deal. What do you do when the humidity and temp changes, look for a table somewhere else that plays like you are used to? Dirty cloth can affect the way a table plays as well as a difference between dirty/worn and nice polished balls. Cue balls are different weights. This is just how the game is. Bowling is the same way as I'm sure many other competitive activities are. Every table ever built playing exactly the same would make things kind of boring. What is always said about pool competition? Play the table, not your opponent, differences in tables are part of the game. Have a good one.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.... There is no table that banks properly or incorrectly, only different. ...

I'll mostly agree if the cushions on one table are consistent, however...

I play sometimes on a table where the standard 3-cushion pattern (corner-5) comes in a diamond different for clockwise versus counterclockwise around the table.

On another table I was demonstrating the 70% system for sliding one-rail banks to a student. It worked well until the rail contact point got about a diamond above the side pocket. Then there was a section about a diamond long on that cushion where the bank came to the corner about half a diamond long.

Even consistent can sometimes be broken, in my view...

The shortest playing table I ever saw was a Diamond (hear that, IUTBR? ) where the standard corner-5 shot had to be played nearly along the diagonal in order to get to the pocket after three rails. That's about two diamonds from the usual hit on worn pool cloth.

The longest playing table I ever saw was a Valley at a tournament in Reno. I had to play a corner-5 shot and I didn't like my chances as I had already seen some balls come off the cushions. I had to hit about a diamond from the pocket up the long rail. I played the shot extra special short so I could hit up the rail and the cue ball ended up coming in so long that it hit the end rail and then the ball on the side rail. People applauded my excellent hit and I kept a straight face. This might have been due to a single bad cushion but I didn't have time to test for it.

 

[couldnthinkof01]

I'll mostly agree if the cushions on one table are consistent, however...

I play sometimes on a table where the standard 3-cushion pattern (corner-5) comes in a diamond different for clockwise versus counterclockwise around the table.

On another table I was demonstrating the 70% system for sliding one-rail banks to a student. It worked well until the rail contact point got about a diamond above the side pocket. Then there was a section about a diamond long on that cushion where the bank came to the corner about half a diamond long.

Even consistent can sometimes be broken, in my view...

The shortest playing table I ever saw was a Diamond (hear that, IUTBR? ) where the standard corner-5 shot had to be played nearly along the diagonal in order to get to the pocket after three rails. That's about two diamonds from the usual hit on worn pool cloth.

The longest playing table I ever saw was a Valley at a tournament in Reno. I had to play a corner-5 shot and I didn't like my chances as I had already seen some balls come off the cushions. I had to hit about a diamond from the pocket up the long rail. I played the shot extra special short so I could hit up the rail and the cue ball ended up coming in so long that it hit the end rail and then the ball on the side rail. People applauded my excellent hit and I kept a straight face. This might have been due to a single bad cushion but I didn't have time to test for it.

Never let them see you sweat

 

[Biloxi Boy]

I highly doubt that Diamond set out to change the way tables banked, there are table mechanics out there today who don't understand rail thickness vs sub rail angle and its effects on banking. There is no table that banks properly or incorrectly, only different. A GC banks different than a Diamond and both of those bank different than a Valley and the list goes on. Im sure almost every table manufacturer has their idea of what is a properly playing pool table. Its just a difference in how they play, make an adjustment, its not a big deal. What do you do when the humidity and temp changes, look for a table somewhere else that plays like you are used to? Dirty cloth can affect the way a table plays as well as a difference between dirty/worn and nice polished balls. Cue balls are different weights. This is just how the game is. Bowling is the same way as I'm sure many other competitive activities are. Every table ever built playing exactly the same would make things kind of boring. What is always said about pool competition? Play the table, not your opponent, differences in tables are part of the game. Have a good one.

Here's the problem. I have enough hitches and variations in how I shoot. I have spent near 60 years just trying to identify my deficiencies and correct them. It does not help to have table manufacturers adding to my burdens.

And, by your rationale, it is perfectly to acceptable to gaff a table by sticking and leaving pins or needles in the cushions, or other nefarious means. Nothing to get in a beef about -- just adjust.

"Shit happens" is a good rationale for writing off the unavoidable, but it is not a reason to accept avoidable shit.

 

[straightline]

Here's the problem. I have have enough hitches and variations in how I shoot. I have spent near 60 years just trying to identify my deficiencies and correct them. It does not help to have table manufacturers adding to my burdens.

And, by your rationale, it is perfectly to acceptable to gaff a table by sticking and leaving pins or needles in the cushions, or other nefarious means. Nothing to get in a beef about -- just adjust.

"Shit happens" is a good rationale for writing off the unavoidable, but it is not a reason to accept avoidable shit.

As long as you can keep track of yourself, it is what it is.