Do you enjoy watching pool on tables with tight pockets?

[alstl]

I watched the steam from Hard Time yesterday, super tight pockets, the best players in the world were dogging shots.

Myself, I don't enjoy that. If I went to a baseball game to see Babe Ruth I would not enjoy it if the umpires enlarged the strike zone so the Babe could strike out. I would prefer to see the Babe hit a home run.

 

[sammi sam]

i'm ok with it........lol

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I watched the steam from Hard Time yesterday, super tight pockets, the best players in the world were dogging shots.

Myself, I don't enjoy that. If I went to a baseball game to see Babe Ruth I would not enjoy it if the umpires enlarged the strike zone so the Babe could strike out. I would prefer to see the Babe hit a home run.

I think baseball is a bad analogy. Yes, if you're there to watch Babe Ruth, you want a small strike zone but if you're there to watch Cy Young, you'll want a HUGE strike zone.

With pool, some games simply need big pockets. I don't think 14.1 is as interesting a game on tight equipment. One-pocket, on the other hand, is properly played on tight equipment. The tighter, the better. Many of the other games adapt well to either. In fact, I prefer 9ball on buckets and 8ball on tight equipment.

 

[Wybrook]

I believe the analogy pointing out that one pocket is best played on tight pockets is entirely backwards... You actually want to play one pocket on double or single shimmed tables... Here's why:

One pocket is all about moving (sort of)... If the move simply becomes push the cue ball downtable and leave a long shot into a 4" pocket, how hard is it to "move" after all?? There is so much more to the game when you cannot afford to leave your opponent a peek at their hole versus knowing they won't shoot anything into a tight pocket from more than 4 feet away. It becomes retarded.

I prefer a double shimmed pocket for every game as it gives you the flexibility of a wider pocket for shooting games, yet is tight enough that you have to shoot well to make anything. Personally, I have a Diamond Pro-Am with 4" pockets and I have no problem with any game on it, but I feel it takes away some shots and makes beating people too easy.

 

[Masayoshi]

Honestly, players running packages like nothing gets old quick, hell I can do the same on the right tables.

What I like to see is pros out of their comfort zone because that's when the truly strong players shine. This happens a lot more often on difficult tables.

 

[jojopiff]

In Between

I don't wanna see guys playing on SUPER tight equipment but also don't wanna watch them running 12 packs on 4 7/8 pockets either. I don't know what the right pocket size is but I don't think the ones @ Hardtimes that Orcullo/SVB played on last night.

 

[poolhustler]

yes. the tighter the better. Were talkin about pool tables right??

 

[Celtic]

I watched the final of the Hardtimes tourney and Dennis Orcullo put on a clinic on SVB on that "tight" table. You would not know that table was tight the way Dennis was shooting on it.

He was "running racks" and not "missing lots of shots" on that "tight" table.

If other players cannot do the same on such equipment then maybe they should "NOT" be running racks like Orcullo because it seems he is obviously better and that disparity in skill should be visible in the results and not masked by easy equipment that lets everyone with a good break run out.

 

[sfleinen]

I watched the steam from Hard Time yesterday, super tight pockets, the best players in the world were dogging shots.

Myself, I don't enjoy that. If I went to a baseball game to see Babe Ruth I would not enjoy it if the umpires enlarged the strike zone so the Babe could strike out. I would prefer to see the Babe hit a home run.

Al:

And because of the obvious bias in the poll, I did not (and could not) vote.

If you would've had a "Yes, because I like to watch players bear down on every shot, and not become lackadaisical," or a "Yes, because I feel that tight pockets cause the cream to rise to the top, shooting-wise," I would've voted.

But a condescending/sarcastic, "Yes, because I like to watch players miss shots"? Well gee, we're not wiring the poll, and we're not interested in true/honest poll demographics, are we?

As for tight pockets, yes, I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns. Too tight / too deep a shelf, and we're no longer playing pool, but rather a bastardized version of snooker. I think 4.25" pockets are a good challenge to a PROFESSIONAL (which is who we're watching, not some average barfly banger Joe).

-Sean

 

[brandoncook26]

I watched the final of the Hardtimes tourney and Dennis Orcullo put on a clinic on SVB on that "tight" table. You would not know that table was tight the way Dennis was shooting on it.

He was "running racks" and not "missing lots of shots" on that "tight" table.

If other players cannot do the same on such equipment then maybe they should "NOT" be running racks like Orcullo because it seems he is obviously better and that disparity in skill should be visible in the results and not masked by easy equipment that lets everyone with a good break run out.

I watched the finals also and Orcullo made those pockets look like buckets. He was often not more than a foot or two from the object ball and was making two and three on the break a lot.

I also watched the TAR event this weekend and while the players missed balls, there were very few egregious misses.

I didn't mind either table. I'm not saying we should make the pockets 3", but pretty much anything over 4" shouldn't be a hindrance to the best player in the world. SVB ran an unfinished 7 pack against Alex on 4 1/8" pockets. They looked fine to me.

 

[Celtic]

SVB ran an unfinished 7 pack against Alex on 4 1/8" pockets. They looked fine to me.

I totally agree, when players today already still have the potential to shoot like Dennis did in that match or how SVB did against Alex on the TAR table on his huge packages at the end of day 1 and day 2 I don't think those 4 1/8th tables are unreasonable at all and in fact think the sport almost demands tables at least that tight when the top players are able to still perform on them at that level. Anything easier at that point becomes a joke to those guys and the challenge is lacking and the idea of "sport" suffers for it.

And because of the obvious bias in the poll, I did not (and could not) vote.

I voted anyways based on the real reasons for wanting the tigher pockets and ignored the added on quips with built in bias. What you need to realize is people post polls like this, add in boatloads of bias trying to sway the results to those they want to see, and them claim those quotes mean something and try and attempt to get actual people in the industry to take those results seriously and we get real negative effects of another few years of inaction on fixing the equipment problems in this game at much of the pro level.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I watched the steam from Hard Time yesterday, super tight pockets, the best players in the world were dogging shots.

Myself, I don't enjoy that. If I went to a baseball game to see Babe Ruth I would not enjoy it if the umpires enlarged the strike zone so the Babe could strike out. I would prefer to see the Babe hit a home run.

I think we knew where you stood by the way the poll choices were worded.



I like the tight pockets for professional tournaments. You have to keep in mind that some players will struggle on the stream table because they either don't have a chance of winning the event or are just not playing their best that week. But when it gets down to the final a tough table helps define the best of the two best that event.

Take the Hard Times tournament this weekend. Watching some of the stream matches the first couple of days it is easy to jump to the conclusion that the table is too tough. But Dennis and Shane, the two finalists, both played well on that table.

In short race formats you have to toughen the conditions to make precision more of a factor.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I watched the steam from Hard Time yesterday, super tight pockets, the best players in the world were dogging shots.

Myself, I don't enjoy that. If I went to a baseball game to see Babe Ruth I would not enjoy it if the umpires enlarged the strike zone so the Babe could strike out. I would prefer to see the Babe hit a home run.

As someone else said the best player will win on tighter equipment. I think a better analogy would be to golf. More people tune in to watch the Majors as they are played on the toughest courses with the toughest conditions. Some of the best US Opens have been won with scores of even par. The events where the winning score is -30 won't draw the same crowds because people actually want to see the professionals struggle a bit and mix in some double bogeys here and there.

I guess it is more about what you find entertaining. I think pool on those tables gives you a better perspective of how tough the conditions are and that not every single shot they shoot is going to be a given. Sometimes I like to know there is a possibility of them missing a shot before they shoot it. Orcullo made some of those break and runs look like a given because of how well he was playing. Shane simply missed shots. Hats off to Orcullo for his precision play and ball pocketing ability.

 

[krupa]

My answer is "yes" but I voted for the mule because it's not because I like watching people miss. It's because I like watching them make harder shots. I would liken it to watching a no-hitter, or very low-scoring game, in baseball. (Baseball analogies can only go so far when used in pool discussions, so don't read too deep into it.)

 

[PoolBum]

4.25" pockets are fine, if the equipment plays right. Great players can still play great pool with pockets that size, it's just harder.

 

[Island Drive]

..........duplicate

 

[Island Drive]

It's a pool room tournament, it is what it is. Not all tables play perfect and many are in poor locations due to floor traffic etc. But, this felt like a table that rolled good and played like you wanted when it mattered. Rather have too tough and no bad rolls than a table slightly easier, but has some table problems.

 

[Johnnyt]

I enjoy watching the best players play on tight pocket tables, but pockets that were re worked right. When I see a player hit center pocket and go past the shelf with his normal stroke and it comes back out...I know the table is not set up right. When you have to slow roll many types of shots for them to fall that's not pool anymore. I feel 4 1/8" pockets are as small as you want them and still be able to stroke most shots. But thats only if the table was done and set-up right. Johnnyt

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I enjoy watching the best players play on tight pocket tables, but pockets that were re worked right. When I see a player hit center pocket and go past the shelf with his normal stroke and it comes back out...I know the table is not set up right. When you have to slow roll many types of shots for them to fall that's not pool anymore. I feel 4 1/8" pockets are as small as you want them and still be able to stroke most shots. But thats only if the table was done and set-up right. Johnnyt

I agree with Johnny here. Much of this debate rests on how the pockets are set-up. As Johnny points out, a firmly hit ball hit dead-center of pocket should always be accepted. I'd also like to mention that any ball that is rejected should rebound out of the pocket area. I've seen many shimmed pockets reject balls and entirely kill the speed of the ball, allowing them to unnaturally come to a stop and hang by the pocket.

Tight pockets need to play like normal pockets do, only tighter. Sounds simple enough but it appears difficult to produce.

 

[randallt6]

i liked the way the table was playing last night, made the players concentrate even more, svb missed some pretty routine shots.