832
- Thread starter Fatboy
- Start date
I think pool was more fun to watch when the cloth/rails played slower, and players had to knock the ever loving hell out of the break to have even a chance of making a ball. Also, this results in more variance as to the position after the break, leading to a wider variety of runouts, and some pure monster stroke shots to get to a ball when the natural angles just don't get you there.
Faster cloth and perfect tables have homogenized the runouts.
heyball contradicts that. pockets are 3.5" and rounded and the best still run out. either from their own or from their opponents break. there are no indications it's popular outside china, despite big efforts from the promotor JOY to present it well.
i agree that pockets can't be too soft and around 4" makes sense to me but the element to tweak in my opinion, looking at the WNT in particular, is the shot clock. speed it up. have shot clocks on all table. those that can't adapt, tough luck. the next generation will be fast, and fast play is entertaining
I'd say that's a problem with player competence and table consistency - not necessarily in that order.
In the days of Mosconi, Caras and Crane, the break shot was a controlled shot designed to open up only one section of the rack. They would chip away at the rack, knocking off a piece/corner at a time until only a few balls were left, then play for the next break shot. Rarely, if ever, did I see anyone try to open up the entire rack on the break shot. Then Mizerak came along with his super powerful stroke and changed everything. He would slam into the rack with the cue ball and it would churn its way through the rack with massive follow. I was always amazed at how much spin he could impart to the cue ball. He changed the game and the other players had no choice but to follow.
Last edited:
No. Pockets about the same. 4.9 corners & 5.3 side pockets. 760 Simonis cloth.You tell me that the number of balls can be compared to what was done in the past regardless of the width of the pockets,. Pocket size for valuing this kind of feat should be the first thing to consider. If the pockets are 1/4 or 3/8 inch larger than what others had including him in his attempt before this one, that's something to consider. If I ask it, it's simply that for me the size of pockets in his last 832 seem larger than before.
Definitely something I noticed when watching old black and white straight pool matches. I assumed it was because of the slow cloth they played on.
interesting stuff! miz had an incredible stroke. for these high runs, it seems that a too aggressive break is detrimental. it will eventually get you. the thorsten boom draw break will result in a scratch eventually
Well.. I was actually referring to 9 ball when I made the above comment.
Never mind
Trob: An astute, 14.1 knowledgeable, and totally accurate assumption.
Arnaldo
_____________________________________________________________________________
Next time, take a ruler and show it to everyone, it would make it more valuable and that take juste a couple of minutes, if you don't why should people believe you!
We’ve already got pictures of all that for verification. Honestly we owe nothing to you especially after your comment. Really could care less if you believe us. It’s the people that validate the run and people with a positive attitude who we care about that matters, so next time trying posting a positive comment. It goes a lot farther.
Standard gold crown specs. 4.9 corners and 5.3 sides. Are you a hater? You seem obsessed.
If your pockets actually measure 4.9 inches, it would be to Shaw's credit if you showed them to everyone. With the attitude you take by saying that you owe nothing to me or to everyone, it is more than enough to cast very serious doubts on what you are saying. The bad attitude here is not me who has it but 100% you. There's a big difference between being a hater and just wanting to know the real thing.
Only you Pal. I’m relative in the Billiard world with a solid gold reputation for honesty. You questioning me is way out of line. Have a good life.
Last edited:
Never seen that, and these pockets are larger than 4.9 inch, any table mechanic sees this immediately.
You're not wrong. I don't know why the pocket specs are always such a mystery, but they are. It's weird because the pocket size doesn't matter to me since the table is clearly being purposely setup to resemble what previous greats played on. That makes total sense to me. What doesn't make sense, is all the back and forth about the pockets when every human being on the planet can simply walk up to a table and take a picture with a known object as a reference, you know like -- 2 balls between the points of the pockets.
Maybe they just want us yammering on about it.
Isn't this a different table?