I get that. I was referring to standards as in the WPA or BCA standard for equipment. Not sure that existed in the 30's and 40's.Sorry, but Brunswick has built tables to those specs since the 1800's.
I get that. I was referring to standards as in the WPA or BCA standard for equipment. Not sure that existed in the 30's and 40's.Sorry, but Brunswick has built tables to those specs since the 1800's.
I edited out all but the relevant part for this discussion.
Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
Because we know what that measurement is on this table. It's the facing angle that's unknown.why not this part ^^
Everone on here is saying it, they're just not as blunt. lolI'd bet you a $100 you wouldn't say that to my face standing in front of me![]()
Whatever the mouth opening is, 142-143° facing angles dictate a 3/4" reduction in size from mouth to throat. There's no math error - if the mouth is 5" wide, then the throat must be no more than 4 1/4" wide or the angles are not 142-143°.Using your math does not add up unless i am missing something. 5 inch pockets at the mouth and 4.25 in the throat would not allow two balls to fall at the same time. All stock table I saw growing up playing pool in the sixties and 70s until the 90s would allow two balls to drop easily at the same time.
yes, but because of the size of the pockets the table wouldn't qualify for "recommended equipment specifications" from WPA anyhow. So if the angle is just 138° instead of 142°, I don't see how it changes things. Yes, this table plays easy. I posted this before...Because we know what that measurement is on this table. It's the facing angle that's unknown.
4.95 is less than 5.0 last time I checked. But yes, these are basically 5 inch pockets.
PSF is 0.91 since it's <= 5''
View attachment 625048
I did not set up the table. From the photos provided I would guess the Pocket Angle Factor to be somewhere between 137,0 and 138,6 degrees. (PAF 0.97)
View attachment 625046
The small pocket shelf depth is typicall for GCIII (I owened one for years), so this factor makes the pockets more forgiving, then the pocket angle. (PLF 0.95)
View attachment 625047
These numbers make for a Total Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) of about 0.84 (0.838565), so it's a very easy table, even more so with new cloth.
View attachment 625049
Some people are questioning his pace of Play as being way too fast, but I would say if he was not playing as fast as he was, he wouldn’t of had so many chances at high runs.I donno... Eagle Eye is pretty badass...
5" corner pockets are at least common. Parallel facings aren't....because of the size of the pockets the table wouldn't qualify for "recommended equipment specifications" from WPA anyhow. So if the angle is just 138° instead of 142°, I don't see how it changes things.
on wpapool.com they don't say, tables have to be like this. The say "recommended equipment specifications"WPA pocket specs say ...
There are but those are generally tight pocket tables not 5" buckets....there must be tables with Pocket Angle of less then 141°
I am going to do something that rarely happens around here. I will admit you are right. I just measured my double shimmed gold crown pockets and they are almost exactly 3/4 smaller at the back. Also the two balls will barely fall at the same time. I was not considering that the poket edges sit higher than center on the balls thus making the opening a little wider at the center ball height. It took the extra shim on each side of my pockets on my table to make them 5 inches at the opening. All the Brunswick bowling alleys around here in the 70s and 80s had pockets like mine had before I tightened them up.Whatever the mouth opening is, 142-143° facing angles dictate a 3/4" reduction in size from mouth to throat. There's no math error - if the mouth is 5" wide, then the throat must be no more than 4 1/4" wide or the angles are not 142-143°.
pj
chgo
Then why not say whether or not this one is?...there must be tables with Pocket Angle of less then 141°
table was made on purpose as easy as possible to enable huge runs and one was accomplished.There are but those are generally tight pocket tables not 5" buckets.
I have no idea why the organisators don't provide the exact measurements. I had guessed from the photos that the angle is around 137-138°Then why not say whether or not this one is?
pj
chgo
If only we knew those specs as well. That's really why I think critiquing this table is pointless. If we're happy pretending the John S. table was in "spec" (whatever that is) without actually knowing the numbers, then why do we care this time around...?Maybe - but we don't yet know what this table's specs are... and if the facings are parallel, then it's gaffed. By the way, I'd say the same thing about Schmidt's pockets if the question arose.
id take that betI'd bet you a $100 you wouldn't say that to my face standing in front of me![]()
I don't much care - but it makes all this high run stuff just entertainment, not really setting "records".If only we knew those specs as well. That's really why I think critiquing this table is pointless. If we're happy pretending the John S. table was in "spec" (whatever that is) without actually knowing the numbers, then why do we care this time around...?