So what about tight pockets?

DarkPoseidon6

Registered
So I'm new here but had to vent and get a seasoned opinion from everyone here after I put my two cents in about this, which I know has been beaten to death many times.

Maybe I'm old-school, but I don't see how tight pockets are better for the game. I've been playing pool (8-ball mostly with some 9-ball) for the better part of 30 years. I've played on all sorts of tables of all sorts of dimensions, pocket cuts, cloth, etc, and ran out my fare share over the years, won many games, blah, blah. And whatever.....

But I've noticed over the years that the trend is that so many players that own tables and even certain teams on league have been transitioning over to tables with tight pockets. Why is this? Is this really the right direction to go with the game?

I'm sure there are many players that will disagree with me, but in my experience, I don't think tight pockets are going to help the game and are really not for the American games, but rather it's something that lends itself to snooker or even Russian billiards. Those games are all about accuracy for the most part, and not necessarily about positioning AS MUCH as the American games (especially 8 and 9 ball).

Thing about playing 8-ball and (any rotational game especially) on a tight pocket table is that there is so much sacrifice for position in place of pocketing the ball, and the worst part about pocketing a ball with a deep shelf or tight pocket is the ultimate chance that the object ball will rattle in the pocket and sit there for the opposing player to have a freebe. You all know this, sure, but how can you just accept this as part of the game?

I've watched the Mosconi Cup for many years and have seen pro player's matches wasted by some nonsense pocket rejection. It's sad even on an amateur level because I've seen it on my home table that actually has tight pockets and on some public tables (certain bar teams tightened up the pockets at their place) and someone made a great shot and yet because there was spin on the ball, it got rejected and sat there in the pocket. How would anyone think this is even legitimate?

So many shooters nowadays think that the tight pocket is the way to go. I don't agree. And I don't even agree with that even on the pro level. You see that shot in this year's cup by Shaw that was clearly a made shot right down in the throat of the pocket and yet it was rejected because of spin on the ball to get position?

Even take Shane, (which is one of my favorite pro players). He said in TAR that the tight pocket table is really made for one pocket. I agree and feel that it's NOT meant for a rotational game, and even 8-ball at that.

What do you think?
 

jrctherake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
IMO, all tables should have the same pocket size. Furthermore, I think it would be a good idea for all tables to be the same size....8, 9 or 10 foot....doesn't matter which but, just make one size and make all pockets the same size, angle etc...etc with the same felt, same cushions. Anything but a darn toy table. I think you get my point.

If it was up to me, I would make all tables (pocket pool) 4.5' x 9' with 4.5" corners with 2.25" shelves and 4.75" sides. That particular table would be tight enough for 1hole but, not so tight it would ruin 14.1 or rotation games.

Dont matter who makes them as long as they make them all. Same for cloth. It doesn't matter which cloth or who makes it as long as they make all of it and only make the one type.

IMO, most of the people that complain about 4.5" being to big are just complaining to be complaining.

The next time you hear someone say that 4.5" pockets are to big, ask them to prove it by beating the pro ghost at 10 ball. I'm certain, that if your talking to anyone below SVB's level of play you will quickly discover that they can't back up what their spewing out.

I hear the same ole people on here and in rooms I go to talk about the huge 4.5" pockets and then turn around and get beat to death because they can't get out.

IMO, it's very funny. It's like someone that can't jump complaining about a the basket only being 10' off the floor in basketball......lol...so, stupid....it's funny.

I for one hate watching pro play on anything less than 4.5".

Sure as shooting, there's gonna be someone to say:

Yeah, but so-n-so can run rack after rack on 4.5" corners.


Well, regardless of which pro ^^^^^^^named, we've all watched every pro alive from the lowest levels of pros to the elite dog the crap out of balls on 4.5" corners at times.

Jeff
 

logical

Loose Rack
Silver Member
...

What do you think?

I think that you've typed way too many words for most of the members here to get through and never even got around to defining what size pocket you consider tight. This is just going to be a free for all.

Sent from the future.
 

jrctherake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think that you've typed way too many words for most of the members here to get through and never even got around to defining what size pocket you consider tight. This is just going to be a free for all.

Sent from the future.

Exactly.

All the world beaters are gonna say ~4.5" pockets are huge and way to big for pros eventhough, pros miss on 4.5" pockets more often than most think.

Sure, the elite move through 4.5" pockets easier than most but, it allows them to let their strokes out since they don't have to put 99% of their concentration on shooting at needle-holes.

If it was really a big deal, all they would have to do is make races a tad longer and make the break more difficult.

But, like you said:

Free for all..

<<<<<< getting popcorn.....
 

Swighey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I'm new here but had to vent and get a seasoned opinion from everyone here after I put my two cents in about this, which I know has been beaten to death many times.

Maybe I'm old-school, but I don't see how tight pockets are better for the game. I've been playing pool (8-ball mostly with some 9-ball) for the better part of 30 years. I've played on all sorts of tables of all sorts of dimensions, pocket cuts, cloth, etc, and ran out my fare share over the years, won many games, blah, blah. And whatever.....

But I've noticed over the years that the trend is that so many players that own tables and even certain teams on league have been transitioning over to tables with tight pockets. Why is this? Is this really the right direction to go with the game?

I'm sure there are many players that will disagree with me, but in my experience, I don't think tight pockets are going to help the game and are really not for the American games, but rather it's something that lends itself to snooker or even Russian billiards. Those games are all about accuracy for the most part, and not necessarily about positioning AS MUCH as the American games (especially 8 and 9 ball).

Thing about playing 8-ball and (any rotational game especially) on a tight pocket table is that there is so much sacrifice for position in place of pocketing the ball, and the worst part about pocketing a ball with a deep shelf or tight pocket is the ultimate chance that the object ball will rattle in the pocket and sit there for the opposing player to have a freebe. You all know this, sure, but how can you just accept this as part of the game?

I've watched the Mosconi Cup for many years and have seen pro player's matches wasted by some nonsense pocket rejection. It's sad even on an amateur level because I've seen it on my home table that actually has tight pockets and on some public tables (certain bar teams tightened up the pockets at their place) and someone made a great shot and yet because there was spin on the ball, it got rejected and sat there in the pocket. How would anyone think this is even legitimate?

So many shooters nowadays think that the tight pocket is the way to go. I don't agree. And I don't even agree with that even on the pro level. You see that shot in this year's cup by Shaw that was clearly a made shot right down in the throat of the pocket and yet it was rejected because of spin on the ball to get position?

Even take Shane, (which is one of my favorite pro players). He said in TAR that the tight pocket table is really made for one pocket. I agree and feel that it's NOT meant for a rotational game, and even 8-ball at that.

What do you think?

Agree 100%. Those who want tighter pockets to separate the men from the boys should have a crack at snooker and its prize money. Those who remember why they started playing pool should play on standard tables with standard pockets and keep their tight pockets at home for their prop bets.
 

deanoc

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I like 5 inch pockets,I have more fun when I make shots

On my restored Centennial I had to confirm over and again
that I anted the pockets exactly the standars used by Brunswick
originally.

I got what I asked for and I like them very much
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I purposely tightened my pocket to 4 1/4" on a
7 foot table but I also have shallow shelves. I feel it's good practice. No hitting the rail one diamond from the pocket and still making it on MY table!

But if I had to make a "standard", I would say....
4 1/4" for 7 foot
4 1/2" for 8 foot
And 4 3/4 for 9 foot.

With the shelves getting slightly deeper as the table gets bigger. I dont have the experience to quote pocket angle... to what the angle should be for a certain pocket opening and shelf depth. But maybe a table mechanic can add that aspect to this thread. It really is a science.
 
Last edited:

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The widely held belief is that by practicing on a tight pocket table, it will improve your shotmaking accuracy on any table. I’ve been doing it for a while now and I honestly can’t say it’s made any difference in my game, and I’d consider myself a pretty good player. I would say for any lesser skilled players, it is most likely detrimental to contributing to any improvement in their games.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The widely held belief is that by practicing on a tight pocket table, it will improve your shotmaking accuracy on any table. I’ve been doing it for a while now and I honestly can’t say it’s made any difference in my game, and I’d consider myself a pretty good player. I would say for any lesser skilled players, it is most likely detrimental to contributing to any improvement in their games.

Ok. Maybe it's all in my head... but my win percentage in league went up.

But like I said above... I had to tighten mine because the shelves are so shallow. It plays well. More like it should IMO.

But I will add this.... tight pockets are more then likely detrimental to growing the game... getting new players into the game. So I might have to rethink my pocket size numbers I posted above.
 
Last edited:

slach

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The widely held belief is that by practicing on a tight pocket table, it will improve your shotmaking accuracy on any table. I’ve been doing it for a while now and I honestly can’t say it’s made any difference in my game, and I’d consider myself a pretty good player. I would say for any lesser skilled players, it is most likely detrimental to contributing to any improvement in their games.

I agree. Had my table shrunk to 4 1/8" corners and the frustration outweighed the benefit - went back to 4 1/2". Every pool room I compete at has 4 1/2" or slightly bigger, seems more beneficial to practice closer to what I compete on.
 

jalapus logan

be all. and supports it to
Silver Member
Yeah, this topic has been beat to death for sure, lol. You can read this thread to your heart's content, lol.

My opinion is that Diamond's pro table has it right with their pocket specs and deep shelf. Pool is a collection of games, therefore any table should have all of the games in mind...we are not playing snooker here. I enjoy each of the major games, specifically, 8 ball, the rotation variants, 14.1, onepocket and banks.

Super tight pockets may be acceptable to those who only play 9 or 10 ball, but for banks it is folly, IMO. Same for tight pockets and 14.1

I still don't think that tight pockets make a player better. Sorry, but tight pockets don't improve a player's ability to aim. That's what practice is for.

If we just stick with diamond tables or similar then I'm good with it. No tighter or more difficult, imo.

One last thing to ponder, if you want to make the game more challenging, then find a tougher opponent. When I feel like being humbled, I track John Brumback down and he sets my mind right with a proper beat down, lol.

Side note, I've taken a break from pool since May 2018...BUT my new home with pool room is almost done...should have the table set up in a few months. Sure looking forward to hitting balls again.

Best,

Neil
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
IMO 4.5" corners are more than tight enough especially on long bed Diamonds. We had a room here for a while that had 4" GC's in the mis-led belief that "players" would like them better. Very few people went there and mostly only 1p players. They SUCKED for anything else. Totally changed the way you had to play. Not fun in any way. Again, my $.02, nuthin' more.
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
So I'm new here but had to vent and get a seasoned opinion from everyone here after I put my two cents in about this, which I know has been beaten to death many times.

Maybe I'm old-school, but I don't see how tight pockets are better for the game. I've been playing pool (8-ball mostly with some 9-ball) for the better part of 30 years. I've played on all sorts of tables of all sorts of dimensions, pocket cuts, cloth, etc, and ran out my fare share over the years, won many games, blah, blah. And whatever.....

But I've noticed over the years that the trend is that so many players that own tables and even certain teams on league have been transitioning over to tables with tight pockets. Why is this? Is this really the right direction to go with the game?

I'm sure there are many players that will disagree with me, but in my experience, I don't think tight pockets are going to help the game and are really not for the American games, but rather it's something that lends itself to snooker or even Russian billiards. Those games are all about accuracy for the most part, and not necessarily about positioning AS MUCH as the American games (especially 8 and 9 ball).

Thing about playing 8-ball and (any rotational game especially) on a tight pocket table is that there is so much sacrifice for position in place of pocketing the ball, and the worst part about pocketing a ball with a deep shelf or tight pocket is the ultimate chance that the object ball will rattle in the pocket and sit there for the opposing player to have a freebe. You all know this, sure, but how can you just accept this as part of the game?

I've watched the Mosconi Cup for many years and have seen pro player's matches wasted by some nonsense pocket rejection. It's sad even on an amateur level because I've seen it on my home table that actually has tight pockets and on some public tables (certain bar teams tightened up the pockets at their place) and someone made a great shot and yet because there was spin on the ball, it got rejected and sat there in the pocket. How would anyone think this is even legitimate?

So many shooters nowadays think that the tight pocket is the way to go. I don't agree. And I don't even agree with that even on the pro level. You see that shot in this year's cup by Shaw that was clearly a made shot right down in the throat of the pocket and yet it was rejected because of spin on the ball to get position?

Even take Shane, (which is one of my favorite pro players). He said in TAR that the tight pocket table is really made for one pocket. I agree and feel that it's NOT meant for a rotational game, and even 8-ball at that.

What do you think?


You are not asking anyone a question because you already answered yourself. I am going to "bump" the poll about tight pockets.

Trent from Toledo:eek:
 

crazysnake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For One pocket, tight is my preference.
For Straight pool, standard size on a gold crown is best. Those are my preferences.

Now, if I were teaching or introducing someone to the game, I would want to work on a table that had 5.5 inch pockets.

No one has mentioned how the condition of the cloth effects play here. On a recent trip to NY I played on GC 4 with fairly new simonis cloth, additionally the conditions in the room were so dry, the balls just slid around everywhere. It was extremely difficult. The balls just don't behave as you would expect them to.

I don't believe in one size fits all. I like the idea of introducing different playing conditions for different events. Different balls, different cloth, Gold Crowns, Diamonds, Rassons, with their own individual pocket sizes. Tennis has grass courts, hard courts, and clay. It makes the game more interesting.
Cs

Sent from my Moto Z2 Play using Tapatalk
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
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.

I'm sure there are many players that will disagree with me, but in my experience, I don't think tight pockets are going to help the game and are really not for the American games, but rather it's something that lends itself to snooker or even Russian billiards. Those games are all about accuracy for the most part, and not necessarily about positioning AS MUCH as the American games (especially 8 and 9 ball).

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.

Thing about playing 8-ball and (any rotational game especially) on a tight pocket table is that there is so much sacrifice for position in place of pocketing the ball, and the worst part about pocketing a ball with a deep shelf or tight pocket is the ultimate chance that the object ball will rattle in the pocket and sit there for the opposing player to have a freebe. You all know this, sure, but how can you just accept this as part of the game?

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.
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Pocket Specifications

For what it's worth, here are some specifications:

BCA corner pocket spec is a 5" pocket. They express it as "Mouth 4 7/8” minimum to 5 1/8” maximum." This is 5" +/- 1/8".

WPA Tour Spec is "between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]." That's 4 9/16" +/- 1/16".

At one point I had the Brunswick Gold Crown I pocket spec, but I can't find it now! If anyone has it, please share.

I think the WPA Tour spec is silly, since measuring the point of a cushion that's covered with cloth to within a 1/16" is a fool's errand.

Interestingly to me, one who started his professional life as something of a specification engineer, no one specifies the tolerance, pocket-to-pocket.

I would prefer to see pool, "the" game we call pool, played on a standardized pocket size, whether at home, in a billiard hall, or in tournaments. I imagine pocket sizes might vary with size of table to keep the TDF consistent (see Dr. Dave's excellent study on this:

https://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/nov13.pdf

For a 9' tale, I want 5" corner pockets.
 

Shuddy

Diamond Dave’s babysitter
Silver Member
For what it's worth, here are some specifications:

BCA corner pocket spec is a 5" pocket. They express it as "Mouth 4 7/8” minimum to 5 1/8” maximum." This is 5" +/- 1/8".

WPA Tour Spec is "between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]." That's 4 9/16" +/- 1/16".

At one point I had the Brunswick Gold Crown I pocket spec, but I can't find it now! If anyone has it, please share.

I think the WPA Tour spec is silly, since measuring the point of a cushion that's covered with cloth to within a 1/16" is a fool's errand.

Interestingly to me, one who started his professional life as something of a specification engineer, no one specifies the tolerance, pocket-to-pocket.

I would prefer to see pool, "the" game we call pool, played on a standardized pocket size, whether at home, in a billiard hall, or in tournaments. I imagine pocket sizes might vary with size of table to keep the TDF consistent (see Dr. Dave's excellent study on this:

https://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2013/nov13.pdf

For a 9' tale, I want 5" corner pockets.

It’s not difficult to keep tables to exact tolerances. Use templates. World Snooker uses standard templates for every table install. There’s no measuring being done. Either the pockets fit the template or they don’t.
 

strmanglr scott

All about Focus
Silver Member
Holy cow, another thread on pocket size?!

From Dean's 12 pages, TOT's 16 pages.

2 pages on this one and it's been up since 5:30 this morning.

I find it highly suspect that this is the OPs first thread and post.
 
Top