A potentially new take on pocket cuts?

how about a national

a local hall has national tables, i think they were called starsomethingrather. other than the rails being garbage, they had the fairest cut and pocket depth of any table i've played on. balls hit in on the outer jaw went in, no bobble. and anything that caught the inside rail didn't bobble but was spit out by the pocket most of the time. nice tight pockets too.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's fine if you want a GC to play like a Diamond. But I didn't want my GC to play like a Diamond. I wanted it to play like a well set up Gold Crown. I only mentioned the relative pocket size in reference to trying to equate difficulty between the two brands. But even if they are of equal difficulty they will play a little different.
 
Sorry then, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to have your table play like a Diamond.

DogsPlayingPool said:
I suppose that's fine if you want a GC to play like a Diamond. But I didn't want my GC to play like a Diamond. I wanted it to play like a well set up Gold Crown. I only mentioned the relative pocket size in reference to trying to equate difficulty between the two brands. But even if they are of equal difficulty they will play a little different.
Click to expand...
 
nathandumoulin said:
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.
Click to expand...

the tighter pockets affect the way pool is played. With too tight pockets you can't play the same shots you do with bigger pockets. In snooker when a ball is near the rail that ball is considerate unpottable because the degree of accuracy required to make the ball is too high. Working on pockets cuts on a pool table affect almost only the shots under/ near the rail ( if you are aiming directly toward the pocket, unless you are hitting the points) making them harder without making the pockets too tight and changing the game. When you are down/ near the rail and a clean shot ( = basically when you hit the center of the pocket and the ob is not brushing the rail before the pockets or hitting the points of the pocket) is refused by the pocket or you need to use pocket speed in order to make the ball, you are not playing on a tight table but on a table which is not playing right ( example: the 10ft table used on Strickland vs SVB). A tight but fair table should accept a clean shot at any speed.
 
Last edited:
I think you can watch videos of Russian Pyramid to see what tight pool-style pockets looks like.
 
While I agree there should be standard pockets, preferably with the standard shelf depth, the real problem is how to accomplish this. There are thousands of tables and replacing rails is not a project that is lightly undertaken in a pool room or at home.

There is a need for some technology inventor to come up with a way to standardize pockets on any table in a relatively easy manner. We need a new standard for pocket facings and how to easily insert them into any table.

Many sports have pretty standard equipment and it seems to me that Simonis 860 with Aramith balls are pretty well the accepted standard for most of us.

I doubt that it would be too difficult to standardize pockets. The BCA and WPA organizations have done a pretty good job with their recommendations what we need is an easy way to install these recommended specifications. With the right technology the specs could be more precise.


Looks like a place where someone could make a ton of money.

It would be neat if you could buy a “standard” pocket similar to the metal corners found on a Gold Crown only with pocket attached. The user would cut into the rail and the new pocket would simply drop in. I don’t know how to handle the edge between pocket and rail and that is where some inventive soul comes into play.
 
Last edited:
nathandumoulin said:
Exactly!

Look at the opening miss. He hits it bad and rather than hang up in the pocket, it's completely rejected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0hpM03RajI (Earl playing Russian Pyramid Billiards)

Now play with proper size balls and 4" pockets cut like this, and voila!
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fokrkyabvP8

Another one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fokrkyabvP8

I think pool is good like it is. It's kind of like playing on different tennis courts or courses in golf. So it's not just about who the best player is but also who can best adapt to conditions. I do kind of hate tables that reject balls that I feel I made. But on the other hand when I see someone else running out on it then I know the table can be mastered. And so when I run out on it I feel pretty good.

There is such a thing as too tight where pool is not at all enjoyable. There is a table at Shooters in Kansas City that is so tight you almost have to jump the ball into the pocket. It's so tight that it's difficult to make a two foot straight-in shot.

I would probably quit pool if tables ever went that tight.
 
A lot of people are saying "good idea but I dont think it matters as long as both players are playing on the same equipment". That makes sense, but I don't think everyone realizes the importance of *why* I think the pocket cut needs to be changed.

One of the biggest problems with our sport is that it's not spectator friendly. As players continue to gain skill and play at higher levels, the games (like 9 ball & 10 ball) are becoming too easy for them. They're trying to eliminate the luck involved to make it harder by instituting call-shot an call-safe rules.

From a viewers perspective, these rules make for incredibly boring matches. Watching a creative player like Pagulayan utilize two-way shots to facilitate an aggressive approach is all but lost. The game becomes robotic execution, lacking creativity and artistry.

The key (or so I feel) is to keep the loose rules, yet opt to make the game harder by changing the pockets. By cutting the pockets with parallel facings and a smaller mouth, we can eliminate the shelf. This requires greater accuracy, yet negates the need for "pocket speed". Players can then use all sorts of stroke and power shots without fear of hanging balls.

The end result is a more exciting game, more creative rules, and a better game for both spectators and players.
 
Last edited:
I'm lucky that where I play they have all GC,s but all in different configurations. By configurations, I mean different cloth, rails, balls, and pocket openings.

There are several that have been shimmed tighter and all done by different table mechanics.

There are tables that have the same opening size, but because of the shimming some will rattle a shot and I do the same shot on another no rattle.

So, having playing on all these different tables, I have learn how to read a table and the pockets. I can make the needed adjustment in my style of play to suit the table. That's what the pro do....

Having how a table plays as unknown, it adds a little more suspense on if the shot will be made.

It sounds like that maybe people do not know how to adjust for the different tables. Winning in pool is not about being able to do show off strokes or shots, but doing only whats necessary to win.

However, even with tight pockets you still can do these types of shots.

If your good enough and know when to them by knowing how the table plays.

I do have one table I spend most be time on and I call it my base line table. It is from playing so much on this one table, that when I do practice on one of the others, I can feel the difference on how it plays compared to by base line table and make the adjusted needed. It has helped be to quickly adjust my style to the table. Being able to quickly adjust to the table can be the difference between a win or a loss.

It's all part of HAMB training.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Sorry then, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to have your table play like a Diamond.
Click to expand...

Thanks! (I'd asked earlier if anyone had setup their GC with diamond cuts)

I'm not necessarily trying to make my GC play like a diamond btw, I thought it'd be a good guideline.

My GC is double-shimmed but plays tougher than I'd like so I want to redo it. It's kind of deceptive because the pockets look huge, but if you don't pocket clean through the back of the pocket (4") it tends to bobble. I've been told this could be because of wear on the shims and to try extending the rails this time around.

What I'm going for is badly hit balls get rejected. Meaning if it hits the rail 2 diamonds out at 10 degrees it shouldn't go. But also that ALL good shots go - including balls shot down the rail with speed that hit the pocket facing. It's more important to me that all good shots go than keeping bad shots out.
 
Rail extensions are the bomb.

My gc was triple shimmed the first time I had it done and it played all over the map.

The problem with most gold crowns is the pocket miters and down angles are different for every corner. It wasn't until Glenn did his magic that the pockets are consistent now.

luckwouldhaveit said:
Thanks! (I'd asked earlier if anyone had setup their GC with diamond cuts)

I'm not necessarily trying to make my GC play like a diamond btw, I thought it'd be a good guideline.

My GC is double-shimmed but plays tougher than I'd like so I want to redo it. It's kind of deceptive because the pockets look huge, but if you don't pocket clean through the back of the pocket (4") it tends to bobble. I've been told this could be because of wear on the shims and to try extending the rails this time around.

What I'm going for is badly hit balls get rejected. Meaning if it hits the rail 2 diamonds out at 10 degrees it shouldn't go. But also that ALL good shots go - including balls shot down the rail with speed that hit the pocket facing. It's more important to me that all good shots go than keeping bad shots out.
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
 
Hit center of the hole and you don't have to worry about the pockets. :)

duckie said:
I'm lucky that where I play they have all GC,s but all in different configurations. By configurations, I mean different cloth, rails, balls, and pocket openings.

There are several that have been shimmed tighter and all done by different table mechanics.

There are tables that have the same opening size, but because of the shimming some will rattle a shot and I do the same shot on another no rattle.

So, having playing on all these different tables, I have learn how to read a table and the pockets. I can make the needed adjustment in my style of play to suit the table. That's what the pro do....

Having how a table plays as unknown, it adds a little more suspense on if the shot will be made.

It sounds like that maybe people do not know how to adjust for the different tables. Winning in pool is not about being able to do show off strokes or shots, but doing only whats necessary to win.

However, even with tight pockets you still can do these types of shots.

If your good enough and know when to them by knowing how the table plays.

I do have one table I spend most be time on and I call it my base line table. It is from playing so much on this one table, that when I do practice on one of the others, I can feel the difference on how it plays compared to by base line table and make the adjusted needed. It has helped be to quickly adjust my style to the table. Being able to quickly adjust to the table can be the difference between a win or a loss.

It's all part of HAMB training.
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
 
nathandumoulin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deepening the shelves adds difficulty to balls hanging on in the last 1mm of the shelf. It takes certain kinds of shots away from the shooter shooting at those almost sunken balls. For example, you cannot touch a rail before tapping the ball in--because if you touch the rail, you won't tap the ball at all. Thus the shooters shooting options are more limited than with shallow shelves.
 
nathandumoulin said:
I admit, I never really follow the threads regarding the detailed specifications of various pocket cuts. Almost all the tables here in Canada are GCs, and the cut is almost always the same. It never factors into my non-existent game until I travel to an event in the States and start hanging balls like an idiot because of the deeper shelf on Diamond tables.

Now I hear people say fairly frequently that deeper shelves are great because it hangs balls if they're slightly mishit. However why is this a good thing?

Why not have a very shallow shelf, and then make the pocket mouth much smaller? If the ball is aimed accurately enough to go in the pocket opening, then it should be a good shot. Basketball hoops, hockey and soccer nets, field goal uprights, etc... in no other sport can you be accurate enough to put the ball into the allotted space to score, yet "not hit it right" and have it be rejected.

Having to hit a ball at pocket speed to avoid jawing it causes top pros to be hesitant towards power and stroke shots, which are the most fun to watch. Why not reduce the shelf to promote those shots, while also reducing the pocket mouth to promote accuracy?
Click to expand...

Nathan, Let me simplify things for you. The pocket opening will dictate how difficult the shots are from center table. The shelf depth and pocket angles will dictate how difficult the rail shots are. Basically what you expressed is you prefer tables that have easy rail shots and hard center table shots.

Mitchell, your reference Olhausen vs Diamond on pocket angles and ball rattling. A Olhausen will rattle balls away from pocket, hit the nipple and send the ball to the center of the table and a Diamond will rattle that ball straight across or towards the pocket, keeping the ball near the pocket. The shot your talking about does require more precision on a Diamond but will drop. Diamond tables are designed to have tougher rails shots than center table shots.
 
sdbilliards said:
Nathan, Let me simplify things for you. The pocket opening will dictate how difficult the shots are from center table. The shelf depth and pocket angles will dictate how difficult the rail shots are. Basically what you expressed is you prefer tables that have easy rail shots and hard center table shots.

Mitchell, your reference Olhausen vs Diamond on pocket angles and ball rattling. A Olhausen will rattle balls away from pocket, hit the nipple and send the ball to the center of the table and a Diamond will rattle that ball straight across or towards the pocket, keeping the ball near the pocket. The shot your talking about does require more precision on a Diamond but will drop. Diamond tables are designed to have tougher rails shots than center table shots.
Click to expand...

I would think that a smaller pocket opening would make shots more difficult for both center table and rail shots. As opposd to making one easier than the other. A deeper shelf only makes rail shots more difficult and leaves center table shots pretty much the same (unless you change the angle of the pockets to something funky).

What is diamond's reasoning for making rail shots relatively more difficult while leaving center table shots easy?
 
sfleinen said:
Diamond's pocket cuts are of the precise angle that will accept a ball hitting the chiseled face directly, but not accept a ball hitting the chiseled face from the angle formed when the ball glances off the adjoining cushion. (The ball bobbles and hangs on the extended shelf.)-Sean
Click to expand...

On a Diamond I can hit the cushion quite a ways back from the pocket and it still goes. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
 
risky biz said:
On a Diamond I can hit the cushion quite a ways back from the pocket and it still goes. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Diamonds tend to have buckets if you shoot down a rail at pocket speed, but are fairly unforgiving if you hit the same shot hard (not only that, the ball will hang should you miss). I think his reference was towards the latter.
 
luckwouldhaveit said:
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?
Click to expand...


Mark Gregory has a GC V tournament table that he extended the subrails on. The pockets are 4". He also worked the rails on my Centennial. My pockets are 4 1/8". I believe that the demensions of my pockets are the same as the TAR Diamond table. I know that Glenn (RKC) and Mark share knowlege. These pockets are fair but tough. If I pound a ball down the rail and it contacts the pocket facing, it will drop. This is a big difference from the Olhausen that it replaced.

What I'm saying is, I like the setup on the TAR table better than the original Diamond pocket cut. A ball struck at pocket speed down the rail that hit the cushion prior to the pocket facing should go in. This isn't true with the standard Diamond pocket cut. The Diamond 41/2" pocket cut plays good too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top