Ernesto Dominguez: Still doing table work in the Los Angeles area?

[johnhendy]

I have been friends with Ernesto since he came to the USA in 76. A great player and a great man with a wonderful family. He is working with one of the young guys up here, but you are right, there will never be another like him.

 

[phreaticus]

Sorry for the minor thread piggyback, but can anyone tell me what the pocket face angles are supposed to be on a modern factory GC6 TE table? (If there is such a thing as a “standard” for Brunswick TE pockets). Haven’t measured mine yet, but my pocket openings are 4.25” and rattle like hell, they play much tougher than many 4.0-4.125” tables I’ve played on, including some done by well known table techs such as Oscar, etc. I’d love to have nice tight pockets that can still take well hit balls with speed, mine spits them out all day long, super annoying.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Sorry for the minor thread piggyback, but can anyone tell me what the pocket face angles are supposed to be on a modern factory GC6 TE table? (If there is such a thing as a “standard” for Brunswick TE pockets). Haven’t measured mine yet, but my pocket openings are 4.25” and rattle like hell, they play much tougher than many 4.0-4.125” tables I’ve played on, including some done by well known table techs such as Oscar, etc. I’d love to have nice tight pockets that can still take well hit balls with speed, mine spits them out all day long, super annoying.

140 is what you want. My guess is your Brunswick is more like 143, but the best way to find out is to purchase a protractor and measure them.

 

[trentfromtoledo]

Sorry for the minor thread piggyback, but can anyone tell me what the pocket face angles are supposed to be on a modern factory GC6 TE table? (If there is such a thing as a “standard” for Brunswick TE pockets). Haven’t measured mine yet, but my pocket openings are 4.25” and rattle like hell, they play much tougher than many 4.0-4.125” tables I’ve played on, including some done by well known table techs such as Oscar, etc. I’d love to have nice tight pockets that can still take well hit balls with speed, mine spits them out all day long, super annoying.

Brunswick and Diamond use 141. gonna say predator and rasson do to. I see these odd numbers that no manufacturers use, that are "right", then I wonder??? Why are all the manufacturers doing it their way then?? Honest question??

TFT

 

[ChrisinNC]

I have been friends with Ernesto since he came to the USA in 76. A great player and a great man with a wonderful family. He is working with one of the young guys up here, but you are right, there will never be another like him.

Brunswick and Diamond use 141. gonna say predator and rasson do to. I see these odd numbers that no manufacturers use, that are "right", then I wonder??? Why are all the manufacturers doing it their way then?? Honest question??

TFT

Has Diamond changed their facing angle? I have a 2015 Diamond smart barbox that came new from the factory with 143 degrees - I know how to read a protractor.

 

[phreaticus]

140 is what you want. My guess is your Brunswick is more like 143, but the best way to find out is to purchase a protractor and measure them.

Thanks, Will do.

WPA specs call for corner pocket mouth size between 4.5 and 4.625 inches, and horizontal cut angles of “142 degrees (+1)”. BCA specs say 4-7/8” to 5-1/8” and “142 degrees (+/-1)”. Note how BCA allows the angle range to be one degree larger at 141-143 vs WPA’s range of 142-143.

So if we go with pocket mouths that are tighter than standard pro specs like 4.25” corners, but want to keep behavior true to the spirit of original specs, it seems like we would have to actually increase the horizontal cut angle, to keep the ratios linearly aligned with the original specs. But the suggested cut angle of 140 is decreasing the angle, making the pocket facings slightly more parallel than specs. Presumably the tighter pocket mouths promote crisper shot making while the inner facing/opening are a tad more forgiving to still accept well hit balls that clear the mouths. Is this the general idea behind the 140 angle you are suggesting?

Sorry, I’m a noob at this stuff and just trying to understand a bit better how openings & angles really affect play. I will find a protractor & measure my angles.

Thanks

 

[phreaticus]

Brunswick and Diamond use 141. gonna say predator and rasson do to. I see these odd numbers that no manufacturers use, that are "right", then I wonder??? Why are all the manufacturers doing it their way then?? Honest question??

TFT

Trent, does BW & Di use 141 degrees no matter what pocket size? And is that their design spec on paper, or what you actually see/measure on the product coming out of both factories delivered to customers?

BW seems to have no real standard for their TE and thier dealer order process doesn’t allow the customer to specify pocket sizes. Or at least not for me and my local dealer. I see folks with TE’s with anywhere from 4.125 to 4.5” mouths. My table corners are actually about 4.3”, and have a 0.10” variation even among the 4 corners. I assume this is due to manufacturing tolerances, but a pocket size variation of .375” is obviously non trivial for a supposed best in class $10k pro pool table with a $1-2k TE package. If they have this much variation on the mouth size, are their delivered cut angles really truly a consistent 141 degrees?

 

[ChrisinNC]

Thanks, Will do.

WPA specs call for corner pocket mouth size between 4.5 and 4.625 inches, and horizontal cut angles of “142 degrees (+1). BCA specs say 4-7/8” to 5-1/8” and “142 degrees (+/-1)”. Note how BCA allows the angle range to be one degree larger at 141-143 vs WPA’s range of only 142-143.

So if we go with pocket mouths that are tighter than standard pro specs like 4.25” corners, but want to keep behavior true to the spirit of original specs, it seems like we would have to actually increase the horizontal cut angle, to keep the ratios linearly aligned with the original specs. But the suggested cut angle of 140 is decreasing the angle, making the pocket facings slightly more parallel than specs. Presumably the tighter pocket mouths promote crisper shot making while the inner facing/opening are a tad more forgiving to still accept well hit balls that clear the mouths. Is this the general idea behind the 140 angle you are suggesting?

Sorry, I’m a noob at this stuff and just trying to understand a bit better how openings & angles really affect play. I will find a protractor & measure my angles.

Thanks

For any size pocket mouth, as you alter the pocket facing angle from 145 degrees any extent down towards 135 degrees (parallel facings) it results in the pockets rattling out less balls and accepting more balls.

Many of us have played on tables, for example the older Olhausen commercial model tables that had 5 inch or even larger corner mouth measurements, but had very unforgiving tapered facing angles of 145 or even higher. These pockets (due to the pocket facing angle played brutally tough when hitting a ball down the rail, as when a ball hit that opposite pocket facing with any pace on it at all, it would rattle out.

We’ve been experimenting with pocket mouth sizes and pocket facing angles on the tables in our pool room for 25 years now. The four and three-quarter inch corners combined with the 140° pocket facing angles I feel are ideal for our lower level players, which are our large majority of players. Our tighter tables which consist of two tables with 4 1/2 inch corners and two tables with 4 1/4 inch corners, all now have 140° pocket facing angles as well.

Yes, these tables play considerably tougher, but are now playable enough for everyone that we can still utilize these tables along with our other easier tables for our weekly nine ball handicapped tournaments. That was simply not the case before we changed these 4 tighter tables from 143° to 140° PFA.

 

[phreaticus]

For any size pocket mouth, as you alter the pocket facing angle from 145 degrees any extent down towards 135 degrees (parallel facings) it results in the pockets rattling out less balls and accepting more balls.

Many of us have played on tables, for example the older Olhausen commercial model tables that had 5 inch or even larger corner mouth measurements, but had very unforgiving tapered facing angles of 145 or even higher. These pockets (due to the pocket facing angle played brutally tough when hitting a ball down the rail, as when a ball hit that opposite pocket facing with any pace on it at all, it would rattle out.

We’ve been experimenting with pocket mouth sizes and pocket facing angles on the tables in our pool room for 25 years now. The four and three-quarter inch corners combined with the 140° pocket facing angles I feel are ideal for our lower level players, which are our large majority of players. Our tighter tables which consist of two tables with 4 1/2 inch corners and two tables with 4 1/4 inch corners, all now have 140° pocket facing angles as well.

Yes, these tables play considerably tougher, but are now playable enough for everyone that we can still utilize these tables along with our other easier tables for our weekly nine ball handicapped tournaments. That was simply not the case before we changed these 4 tighter tables from 143° to 140° PFA.

Thanks Chris, very clear & very helpful. I have family in the Carolinas, look forward to visiting your room in the future.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Thanks, Will do.

WPA specs call for corner pocket mouth size between 4.5 and 4.625 inches, and horizontal cut angles of “142 degrees (+1)”. BCA specs say 4-7/8” to 5-1/8” and “142 degrees (+/-1)”. Note how BCA allows the angle range to be one degree larger at 141-143 vs WPA’s range of 142-143.
...

I believe there is a character set typo problem in the WPA specs. If you look at the ball diameters, it is also with only a positive tolerance. I think the "+-" character got mistranslated to "+" somewhere in the system.

 

[phreaticus]

I believe there is a character set typo problem in the WPA specs. If you look at the ball diameters, it is also with only a positive tolerance. I think the "+-" character got mistranslated to "+" somewhere in the system.

Ok. I was wondering about that, as "+1" really makes no sense for a spec. Thanks Bob

 

[fiftyyardline]

Thanks, Will do.

WPA specs call for corner pocket mouth size between 4.5 and 4.625 inches, and horizontal cut angles of “142 degrees (+1)”. BCA specs say 4-7/8” to 5-1/8” and “142 degrees (+/-1)”. Note how BCA allows the angle range to be one degree larger at 141-143 vs WPA’s range of 142-143.

So if we go with pocket mouths that are tighter than standard pro specs like 4.25” corners, but want to keep behavior true to the spirit of original specs, it seems like we would have to actually increase the horizontal cut angle, to keep the ratios linearly aligned with the original specs. But the suggested cut angle of 140 is decreasing the angle, making the pocket facings slightly more parallel than specs. Presumably the tighter pocket mouths promote crisper shot making while the inner facing/opening are a tad more forgiving to still accept well hit balls that clear the mouths. Is this the general idea behind the 140 angle you are suggesting?

Sorry, I’m a noob at this stuff and just trying to understand a bit better how openings & angles really affect play. I will find a protractor & measure my angles.

Thanks

A slight clarification/correction: WPA cut angle is 142°plus or minus 1°. Technically there is are no more “BCA“ rules - the current BCAPL/CSI cut angle specification is 141° plus or minus 1° and BCAPL/CSI pocket size is 4.5” plus or minus 1/16”

 

[phreaticus]

Thanks Chris, very clear & very helpful. I have family in the Carolinas, look forward to visiting your room in the future.

So I finally measured my PFA’s. Chris, your guess was accurate. Mine are 143 ish. Actually eyeballing as carefully as I can with cheap kids plastic protractor - a couple of them even look 143.5-144. I guess I now know why my GC6/TE with 4.25” pockets plays so much tougher than other tables with 4.0-4.5" pockets.

I've learned a lot from this thread. Thanks for your help & suggestions.