GC5 Tournament Edition pocket sizes

rexus31 said:
If the points are the outer most part of the rail, how would the balls touch an area inward from there first?

4.5" should be 4.5" regardless if it's across the equators of two spheres measuring 2.25" in diameter or across the span of a 4.5" measuring device.
Click to expand...
It’s the downward bevel angle. I think it’s 12 degrees. Go to your table and put the balls anywhere you like within the jaws. Then lift them straight up. They will get closer together.

The balls touch at the facing well below the visible points in a picture due to this.
 
Maybe it's me, but I see close to 1/4" total gap.

OP said he would be posting more pics soon.

Screenshot_20240815-111702__01.jpg
 
iusedtoberich said:
It’s the downward bevel angle. I think it’s 12 degrees. Go to your table and put the balls anywhere you like within the jaws. Then lift them straight up. They will get closer together.

The balls touch at the facing well below the visible points in a picture due to this.
Click to expand...
They don't fit in the jaws.

49603456301_188b5bd315_k.jpg
 
Why in the world are people still debating this? The guy put a ruler right at the points. It shows about 4 9/16”. Instead everyone is arguing minutia of a ball picture.

OP, your pockets are perfectly normal Tournament Edition pockets, made to Brunswick’s published specifications. I’d bet the house on it.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Why in the world are people still debating this? The guy put a ruler right at the points. It shows about 4 9/16”. Instead everyone is arguing minutia of a ball picture.

OP, your pockets are perfectly normal Tournament Edition pockets, made to Brunswick’s published specifications. I’d bet the house on it.
Click to expand...
Do you own or rent?
 
rexus31 said:
They don't fit in the jaws.

49603456301_188b5bd315_k.jpg
Click to expand...
You can do the same thing with a single ball. Put it in the jaw and lift it up. It will move inwards as you do. The jaw is cut at a compound angle. I know you know this, as you know tables inside and out.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Why in the world are people still debating this? The guy put a ruler right at the points. It shows about 4 9/16”. Instead everyone is arguing minutia of a ball picture.

OP, your pockets are perfectly normal Tournament Edition pockets, made to Brunswick’s published specifications. I’d bet the house on it.
Click to expand...
Do you agree there is more than a total of 1/16" in gaps between the balls and the facings in the pic the OP provided?

1723744075503.png
 
rexus31 said:
Do you agree there is more than a total of 1/16" in gaps between the balls and the facings in the pic the OP provided?

View attachment 773321
Click to expand...
The way it looks here I would. BUT, it almost looks to me that the balls and the two tits do not make a straight line.

Like I said and I’d bet the farm on, the ruler trumps any picture of a ball.
 
iusedtoberich said:
The way it looks here I would. BUT, it almost looks to me that the balls and the two tits do not make a straight line.

Like I said and I’d bet the farm on, the ruler trumps any picture of a ball.
Click to expand...
Close enough. The 3B is a tad high but even moving it down there were be more than a total of 1/16" gap.

1723744075503.png
 
rexus31 said:
Close enough. The 3B is a tad high but even moving it down there were be more than a total of 1/16" gap.

View attachment 773322
Click to expand...
You can’t do that with a picture. The lens being tilted a few degrees will change the whole picture.

Plus you are missing my whole point. The balls contact the facing above their equator, due to the downward bevel angle. So even if a picture was 100% non distorted and showed a perfect zero gap with two balls, it would actually not be 4.5” at the tits.

Anyone here can simply put a ball in the jaws and lift it straight up to see for themselves. It will move towards the center of the pocket about 3/16” or so. (I just did it by eye at my table).
 
Badpenguin said:
These reflections? (camera lens?) look a little weird, is that what you are referring to?

View attachment 773305
Click to expand...
I can't see a camera reflection for one. But I have seen enough AI that I can usually tell that it is a generated photo. This photo just looks suspect. But the most obvious thing is that the ruler says 4 1/2 or 4/58 and two balls side by side equal 4 1/2 and that picture has at least 3/8" more than two balls width.
 
atlas333 said:
I can't see a camera reflection for one. But I have seen enough AI that I can usually tell that it is a generated photo. This photo just looks suspect. But the most obvious thing is that the ruler says 4 1/2 or 4/58 and two balls side by side equal 4 1/2 and that picture has at least 3/8" more than two balls width.
Click to expand...
Could be a cheapass chines ruler too. i've seen some chinese crap that was so far from spec. you wouldn't believe it. kinda goin down conspiracy lane here. really think someone would go to that extreme to describe a pool pocket??? AI/photoshop/fake?? don't think so.
 
iusedtoberich said:
You can’t do that with a picture. The lens being tilted a few degrees will change the whole picture.

Plus you are missing my whole point. The balls contact the facing above their equator, due to the downward bevel angle. So even if a picture was 100% non distorted and showed a perfect zero gap with two balls, it would actually not be 4.5” at the tits.

Anyone here can simply put a ball in the jaws and lift it straight up to see for themselves. It will move towards the center of the pocket about 3/16” or so. (I just did it by eye at my table).
Click to expand...
There is nothing obscuring the edges of the balls in the image.
The cushion nose is not touching, let alone blocking the view.
 
jimmyco said:
There is nothing obscuring the edges of the balls in the image.
The cushion nose is not touching, let alone blocking the view.
Click to expand...
The ball sits under the points. So we are not using the widest part of the ball to measure. Go to a table and stick your head on the slate with a ball touching the point (or further in the pocket) and you’ll see what I mean.

I promise I’m not making this up. And I promise it’s a noticeable difference. There is even a video with Greg Sullivan explaining this very thing.
 
iusedtoberich said:
The ball sits under the points. So we are not using the widest part of the ball to measure. Go to a table and stick your head on the slate with a ball touching the point (or further in the pocket) and you’ll see what I mean.

I promise I’m not making this up. And I promise it’s a noticeable difference. There is even a video with Greg Sullivan explaining this very thing.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying.
It does not relate to the image in this discussion.

Screenshot_20240815-111702__01.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top