Honestly, I so rarely play on 4" pockets so I can't comment on it. What's more, the only Brunswicks I've ever played on that were this tight were shimmed and those shims are a strange beast.
A potentially new take on pocket cuts?
- Thread starter nathandumoulin
- Start date
Honestly, I so rarely play on 4" pockets so I can't comment on it. What's more, the only Brunswicks I've ever played on that were this tight were shimmed and those shims are a strange beast.
my opinion:
If pockets are big then openings should be made like this \ /
Smaller pockets ---> than angle have to change up to | | for extreme small one.
Angle on Fatboy diamond pocket are different than normal diamond pockets for the same reason.
If pockets are big then openings should be made like this \ /
Smaller pockets ---> than angle have to change up to | | for extreme small one.
Angle on Fatboy diamond pocket are different than normal diamond pockets for the same reason.
Yeah, I think that's why we're disagreeing here; there are shims and then there are shims. The shims on both of the very tight Brunswick's I've played on much were pretty forgiving; the pockets were small and thus tougher to hit, but you could brush the adjacent rail and still pocket the ball, provided you brushed it very gently such that you were still getting the ball to hit the inside of the facing.
-Andrew
gold croqnsa play extremeky easy anyway so mere shelf depth shouldnt be a concern. As for diamonds they play fair but tighter than gold crowns and the pocket angles are the same as gold crowns the difference is in the vertical cut on the corners not the opening and the 15 degree vertical down cut makes the facings more lively. The onle tables with different opening angles are olhausen which have a one degree wider cut on pocket angles which generate the famous olhausen rattle.
Because that is what separates the men from the boys.
Consider F-class shooting events (600-800-and-1000 yards) the competitors got so good with the 10" targets at 1000 yards, that last year they decreased the X-ring from 10" to 5" with a corresponding drop in the other rings. The power that be decided to lower the scores and make the sport harder, so that the better shooters would rise to the top and make the competition better (i.e. stiffer).
One of my big gripes about using 9-ball as the std for tournements is just that--it prevents the shooter from using delicasy to make shots--or conversely it heavily penalizes itty bitty misses much more so than great big misses. Which seems counterintuative to normal sporting rules.
My point exactly. You make the pocket mouth smaller to make the game more difficult...just like making the targets smaller. Deepening the shelf would be like making the targets oval or something foolish.
Balls that go straight down the rail should NEVER hang if they don't touch anything regardless of the speed.... I set up the frozen ball shot along the rail on a blue label and you were 50/50 at speed once the cloth was worn in......
I would think the best solution would be a pro cut shim that has 2 or more angles to it and is rounded at the changes in angle... That way the further you hit from the pocket mouth the more likely you are to hang the balls...
This would of course demand that the pocket size and base cut of the angles were standardized but at least then you'd know why a ball didn't go when you hit it as well as humanly possible....
I would think the best solution would be a pro cut shim that has 2 or more angles to it and is rounded at the changes in angle... That way the further you hit from the pocket mouth the more likely you are to hang the balls...
This would of course demand that the pocket size and base cut of the angles were standardized but at least then you'd know why a ball didn't go when you hit it as well as humanly possible....
I don't care if the pockets are 4 inches or 5 1/2 inches...I can hang 'em up on any table. I'm a world class ball-rattler. As long as you and your opponent are playing the same game on the same table, so be it. I'm not in favor of changing the equipment to such an extent that certain routine shots (like running frozen balls up a rail) are made physically impossible. As long as the corner pockets will accept a ball hit with accuracy from anywhere on the table, I'm okay with it. Once we start cutting pockets so deep with openings angled or rounded so as not to allow a ball hit cleanly along the rail to go in, then we've changed the game IMHO. Then we might as well put on little vests and use brass ferrules with flat tips......
Nathan, good topic, and I agree with you. I'm not sold on the deep shelf concept myself and prefer the way a well set up Gold Crown plays. And btw, a sloppily hit ball down the rail on a GC won't go either if it hits the point.
I just don't like when you can't hit the shot you are supposed to hit, almost no matter how good you hit it. The typical shot I'm talking about is when the 8 ball is along the side rail at one end of the table and it has to be hit firm in order to draw the CB back up table for the 9 on the other short rail. Do you hit the shot you are supposed to hit knowing it will probably rattle no matter how good you stoke it or settle for slow rolling it and having to play a bank on the 9?
What I find interesting is this is the same thing that so many people dislike about Olhausens yet for some reason when it happens on a Diamond they find it endearing. Yes, I know there are some differences in why this can happen on these two brands of table, but nonetheless it still happens on both yet it's a problem when it occurs on the Olhausen but a positive when it happens on the Diamond.
I just don't like when you can't hit the shot you are supposed to hit, almost no matter how good you hit it. The typical shot I'm talking about is when the 8 ball is along the side rail at one end of the table and it has to be hit firm in order to draw the CB back up table for the 9 on the other short rail. Do you hit the shot you are supposed to hit knowing it will probably rattle no matter how good you stoke it or settle for slow rolling it and having to play a bank on the 9?
What I find interesting is this is the same thing that so many people dislike about Olhausens yet for some reason when it happens on a Diamond they find it endearing. Yes, I know there are some differences in why this can happen on these two brands of table, but nonetheless it still happens on both yet it's a problem when it occurs on the Olhausen but a positive when it happens on the Diamond.
As far as the pocket facings, I agree with Jude. I think Diamonds play much more consistent. Tougher but consistent. The more a pocket looks like \ / the harder it will play. It looks easier being so wide, but the rebound angle off the facing drives it into the other facing causing it to hang up. Especially on a deep shelf diamond.
The deep shelf vs. tight pocket thing, they are both hard. A super tight pocket will reject the same poorly shot balls as a deep shelf. Look at JohnnyT's avatar for example. He's got a Vally with tight pockets, but ZERO shelf. That table looks like you may never miss a ball.
The deep shelf vs. tight pocket thing, they are both hard. A super tight pocket will reject the same poorly shot balls as a deep shelf. Look at JohnnyT's avatar for example. He's got a Vally with tight pockets, but ZERO shelf. That table looks like you may never miss a ball.
Has anyone tried cutting their gc like a diamond and how did it play? What pocket widths would do a good job of keeping out balls that brush the rail too full, but also not bobble shots that hit the back of the pocket facing?
Real king cobra did my gc this way. He would have to respond about the pocket miters and down angles. They had to be adjusted to make up for the shorter shelf of the crown.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Mine has 4 1/4" corners and have been told this is a fair equivalent to the 4 1/2" Diamond pro-cut pockets in terms of overall difficulty. Because the pocket is tighter it makes it a little more difficult to hit inside the point, but if you do it goes.
Yes balls fall in because your shelf is shorter then with 4.5 inch pockets. We're the down angles modified to keep the ball rebounding in the front of the hole instead of being funneled back?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Right, Tony. That's why the pockets on a GC need to be a little tighter than on the Diamond in order to play with the same relative degree of difficulty, to make up for the difference in shelf depth. Keep in mind that as the pocket is made larger the shelf gets deeper. I'm not sure how the down angles were modified because my table was set up with new rubber to make the pockets this size from the get go so I don't know how it was before. If a ball is put as far as possible into the pocket against a facing I'd say maybe just slightly more than 50% is visible down the rail as opposed to I believe 40% for a Diamond.
I'm not sure if Donny would remember the exact down angle he used but we really just discussed how we thought the table should play and he went ahead and did his magic. :wink:
Here was the thread for mine, some pictures on post 17 show the pockets. I took one to try and capture how much of the ball is seen when it is buried in the corner.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=248590&page=2
I had this discussion with Glenn at length, he believed that 4.5 in pockets with 11 degree down angles and 102 degree miters (if I remember right) would have the pockets play as close to a diamond as a GC can.
As I am not the only person using the table, I did not want to frustrate anyone, especially those students who I instruct on the table.
I hope Glenn chimes in if I have the pocket measurements wrong.
The other thing to remember that new cloth will make the pocketing easier. As the cloth wears, the pockets will tighten up a bit too.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=248590&page=2
I had this discussion with Glenn at length, he believed that 4.5 in pockets with 11 degree down angles and 102 degree miters (if I remember right) would have the pockets play as close to a diamond as a GC can.
As I am not the only person using the table, I did not want to frustrate anyone, especially those students who I instruct on the table.
I hope Glenn chimes in if I have the pocket measurements wrong.
The other thing to remember that new cloth will make the pocketing easier. As the cloth wears, the pockets will tighten up a bit too.
Tight equipment is fine but in the end if your cloth is worn or the table is out of level by a little bit the whole thing goes in the toilet. This is my problem with Diamond product in commercial applications. Your average hall table has too much play on it and thus takes away good shots that trap.
Nick
Nick