So what about tight pockets?

Straightpool_99 said:

In ever thread my pov on this has been consistent. I think tight pockets are bad for the game. I'm playing all of the tight pocket billiards games, snooker, blackball, chinese 8 ball, but these are different. US pool has a greater variety of games and a bigger repertoire of shots.

The tightest pockets (apart from Pyramid) are found in Chinese 8 ball. When a ball ends up near a rail, there is a very limited amount of things you can do to the shot. You can't shoot hard or be fancy, you just have to shoot smoothly and at a fairly soft pace. Now in the Chinese 8 ball game this may not be that big of a deal, you just need to play a nice pattern, or maybe play some sort of safe, but in 10 ball or 9 ball it's a big problem. Certain shots are not realistically makeable. The Chinese do play 9 ball on these tables, but it's a much different game. This is what happens if you over tighten the pockets.

I've heard all the brags of the "tight pocket" cowboys...To me it's all hot air. Show me some packages of 9 ball or 10 ball, not once but multiple ones, then I'll listen. It's like a shooter who can't hit the target at 200 meters trying to make the target smaller or moving it further away, it makes no freakin sense at all. Go ahead and play one pocket or banks, then, but don't try to make this small pocket bs standard for the game. Pool is supposed to be a game of creativity and big strokes, not punting safes. And if you don't listen, then get a freaking Chinese 8 ball table, and try to play some 9 ball on it. Maybe then, you'll understand how hoplelessly stupid this whole idea is.

All of you guys trying to make it look like you've "mastered" the game on normal pockets, why don't you play some Rotation? Plenty of challenges left in that game. Not going to see many packages there, even with 4.5 or larger pockets. Or transition to snooker, which is pretty much all straight shooting and safes. Go give the Rocket a beating, then come back and tell us "I told you so".

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this post, and even though I don't have experience with Chinese 8-ball, I understand what you've said even by just watching this game online. For me, just as a spectator, it's nice to watch someone with great eyesight and straight stroke be able to cinch shots into a tight pocket and manage shape just from that on it's own, as a specific type of game, but it lacks interest for me in the long run.

The one major point that you've made is absolutely something I'd like to emphasize in par with my own experience and it's that rotational and EVEN the 8-ball bar game is hindered by tight pockets, especially to the extent of creativity.

Anyone who is any kind of real pool player should have a knowledge of cheating the pocket and most importantly spin on the object ball. Spin on the object ball I would rate up there as beyond the straightness of the shot to a tight pocket. Any player, no matter what discipline of game should realize that it takes a certain kind of stroke that is less than dead center pocket to be able to pull off a shot that is not only right for that shot alone, but to use spin on the ball to manufacture an excellent position on the white ball.

With tight pockets, you have LESS of this. The game becomes restricted and is something much less than pool, and more like target practice with a rifle and takes the game down so many notches, as the games that players for a multitude of years have already been accustomed to playing. Tight pocket advocates often forget that they are playing pool and not shooting with a gun. There are 10-folds more about this game than accuracy alone.

tableroll said:

Your opponent has the same difficulty as you do. No advantage to anyone!

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

I've heard this argument many, many times by even the more experienced players (which is sad).

First off, both players not only do not have the same shots on a (supposed) even playing field, but they also do not have the same styles of play or skill level in how they play on even a given number of shots.

Even without any discrepancy of pocket size and whatever else you can point to; if one player has an easy out, the other player can have a tougher out. There is NO equal playing field to begin with. And by tightening the pockets, the same can not only apply but much more given the kinds of shots that are available and what a said player has to do within that context.

Shuddy said:

First of all, the argument that if someone who espouses tight pockets can’t beat the pro 10 ball ghost/9 ball ghost/run 100 balls then they should shut up, is ridiculous. You may as well say, “If you’re not pro level, then you have no right to an opinion on anything related to pool.” Maybe someone doesn’t like run out pool. Maybe someone thinks the pros should have both accurate cueing and accurate position play, but understands they themselves don’t play at pro level. “You can’t do it, so stfu!” Is schoolyard nonsense.



Snooker is not about positioning as much as the American games? I’m not saying this to insult you, but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Think about it. Potting on a snooker table is much more difficult than a pool table, right? So do you think you can land anywhere and continue to pot balls on a snooker table? Trust me, you can’t. It’s also not as easy to move the cue ball around on a snooker table, meaning you must land in positions that flow to positions.



Hop on youtube and watch some of Judd Trump’s “naughty snooker”. He doesn’t make any sacrifices, and he can certainly let his stroke out. Saying the worst part is leaving a ball hanging is like saying the worst part is missing a pot. That’s just the game of billiards.

I’m not holding a position for any particular size for American pool games, but any argument that 4.25 inch pockets are too small is just laughable. I have 4.25 pockets on my table, and I have never felt cheated when I miss a pot. Not once. In fact, I feel guilty when I play at clubs with 4.5 inch pockets and a ball unexpectedly drops. Putting spin on the cueball doesn’t keep a ball out of a 4.25 inch pocket any more than it does a 4.5 inch pocket, that is to say, using English doesn’t keep an object ball out of any sized pocket. 4.25 inch pockets don’t make potting balls difficult. You can still hit the cushion a diamond away from the pocket and make the ball down the rail.

Coming from a snooker background, I always feel shitty comparing snooker to pool because I genuinely don’t believe that one game is “superior” to the other. They are different games. However, snooker players are superior cueists. And this is only relevant as proof that most American pool players have not stretched their fundamentals to the limit. Reducing the pocket size of American tables will not ruin the game. Players will adjust. They will develop better cueing and still be able to play every shot they could with 4.5 inch pockets.

Again, I’m not suggesting the American game needs one size over the other. It’s just ridiculous to suggest that 4.25 inch pockets could damage the game.

The only position I’ve ever held with regards to pocket size is that there should be a standard. There should be a standard for rules, too. I honestly find it absurd that professional tournaments are played with different rule sets, on different tables, for the same game type. There must be a standard for both tables and rules if the game has any chance of going mainstream again.

Click to expand...

First off, I definitely appreciate your comment. I like the fact that you also come from a snooker background, which to be honest, I have not played snooker personally, so I'm going to be naturally ignorant about some things.

But how can you even compare snooker to the American games? For the record, this is not a matter of superiority of one game to another, but rather a difference of the American games and non-American games in which some sort of hybrid is naturally occurring within the transfer of aspects within the context of the games being played.

You said-----> "Snooker is not about positioning as much as the American games? I’m not saying this to insult you, but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. Think about it. Potting on a snooker table is much more difficult than a pool table, right? So do you think you can land anywhere and continue to pot balls on a snooker table? Trust me, you can’t. It’s also not as easy to move the cue ball around on a snooker table, meaning you must land in positions that flow to positions."

This is true, yet this is not my focal point about the American games. I don't mean that snooker is less about position, it's just that in American games, (ESPECIALLY rotational games), require different, and to an extent, a much more diverse play on position. I will admit that maybe I'm completely in the dark about snooker and really need to be educated about it in my humble position, but let me clarify something.

Snooker players are some of the most accurate potters in the world, but do you realize how many times they miss to get shape because of not only the length of travel on shots, but because of the pocket size they are dealing with? I'm sure you know this well, and it's in no way a slight, but it's just what I've seen by watching players even as amazing as O'sullivan or Jim White.

And I've watched enough to know that even those top players are actually playing for short positions most of the time, and sometimes when they get in trouble, they have to REALLY come up with something phenomenal. And I know (because of having played on pockets 4.25) that even having to pocket long into that and get shape is....(with consistency) well, pretty awesome

You said ---> "Coming from a snooker background, I always feel shitty comparing snooker to pool because I genuinely don’t believe that one game is “superior” to the other. They are different games. However, snooker players are superior cueists. And this is only relevant as proof that most American pool players have not stretched their fundamentals to the limit. Reducing the pocket size of American tables will not ruin the game. Players will adjust. They will develop better cueing and still be able to play every shot they could with 4.5 inch pockets."

Well, I totally disagree with this. I think I've seen this snooker player apologist thing before and will agree with what I've also heard about this sentiment: If snooker players are such superior cueists, then why are they not tearing it up in the American games? Short answer: It's a different game, with many different skill-sets other that accuracy. The pocket size is one thing, right? I beg to differ that even if someone comes from a pocket-accuracy background that it won't matter when it comes to potting a ball and getting shape in a rotational game. Would you really disagree with that?