How tight is three and a quarter inch pockets?
- Thread starter paksat
- Start date
About three and a quarter inches....end of thread.
oh you so clever lol
Pretty tight...
Considering a ball is 2 1/4", that gives you about 1/2" clearance on each side for a straight in center pocket shot. This clearance gets even smaller as you get closer to the rails.
Proportionally, it's probably about the same tightness as a snooker table, but the snooker table is still much harder because of the rounded rails at the pockets.
Considering a ball is 2 1/4", that gives you about 1/2" clearance on each side for a straight in center pocket shot. This clearance gets even smaller as you get closer to the rails.
Proportionally, it's probably about the same tightness as a snooker table, but the snooker table is still much harder because of the rounded rails at the pockets.
Too simple. You fail to ask anything that is not known by asking the question.
You must provide some significant input so that responders can have a chance to answer your actual question.
We can assume...or make fun.
Garbabe in/ garbage out.
It may be practically impossible to make a ball, shooting down the rail...given pro-cut pockets.
I'm not a mechanic, and i'm not familiar with the differing sizes that come from one table to another.
When I was told the pockets were that size on a diamond, I thought it seemed a bit odd and I thought I would come here and ask to get a gauge on just how tough ( or not ) that is.
And now we are getting somewhere: What you want to know is whether that size is normal, if it is practical and if anyone has played on it.
Now we need to know if "pockets were that size on a diamond' means on a specific table, or on all of a brand/ model.
Not so tuff?
And now we are getting somewhere: What you want to know is whether that size is normal, if it is practical and if anyone has played on it.
Now we need to know if "pockets were that size on a diamond' means on a specific table, or on all of a brand/ model.
Not so tuff?
They're on all the 9 foot diamonds there.
Isn't 4.5 inch the standard?
A standard Diamond is 4 1/2 inches in the corners. 3.25" pockets would make it nearly impossible to make a ball. I have pocket tighteners I can put in my pockets to practice that make them 3.5" and it is almost not worth it. You cannot hit anything harder than rolling ball/pocket speed or it will rattle.
I think the tightest you should ever have the table is 4". Watch the Morra/Dominguez match on TAR. That table had 4" pockets and two professional players were scared to death to hit anything hard at all.
Honestly, 4.25" is a really tough Diamond. I personally would never go any tighter than that.
georgem1223
Registered
I think standard diamonds are about 4.5 inches at the mouth and 4.25 at the throat (someone correct this if its wrong). 3.25 inches is about as small as you can get it and still be able to cut one down the rail. It must be peeerfect. if it leave the rail a a hair it will miss. put a set of those pocket reducers on a 4.75 inch table and you will get 3.25 inch pockets.
G
Compared to similiarly sized pocket openings with same/different cut pockets?or Gold Crowns?
That's a small pocket. Too small for practical play. Limited benefit for practice. I might substitute large jawbreakers for the normal balls to scale things down.
That's a small pocket. Too small for practical play. Limited benefit for practice. I might substitute large jawbreakers for the normal balls to scale things down.
This is what brought me here to post this. I'm running on average like 4 balls per inning on these things.
As a matter of fact, it's almost like the shane earl match where they played safe on shots you could make.. but not get position on the next ball.
Same things with these tables, some shots can be made, but you can just forget it when it comes to position.
I found myself doing things like banking cross corner to get position on a ball at the opposite end of the table, rather then shooting and drawing back off one rail or straight back.
Too tight! Impractical for any purpose. You probably have the wrong info on this table. I suspect it may actually be 4.25" pockets. That would make it a very tough Diamond table to play on.
That's what I'm beginning to think now Jay based on what people here have said.
I think i'll just measure them myself next time i'm there rather then asking the managers
Just take two balls and try to put them side-by-side in the corner. If they come close to being beside each other, it is probably 4.25. If they fit beside each other it would be 4.5.
A 3.25 would result in only getting one ball with no chance of the second.
I can't imagine anyone enjoying playing on a table with 3 1/4" pockets! When I play I like to hit the ball with a nice stroke and I couldn't make a ball on a table with pockets that tight. Anything other than straight in and i'd be lost unless I rolled the balls and hoped that they went in.
I think your idea of a minimum of 4.25" is about as low as you would want to go on a Diamond table and that would be a tough table!
James
It's interesting what part of a persons post stands out to one reader as opposed to another. This post stood out to me instantly where you wrote, "I'm running on average like 4 balls per inning on these things."
Never mentioning what game you are playing. Totally assuming the only game there is is 9 ball.
My input is keep the pocket openings standard and get some satisfaction of stringing multiple racks of 15 balls each together in patterns that you get to decide rather than being told what ball to play by numbers on the balls into thimble pockets.
In short what I'm trying to say is, no need to make the table tougher. Instead, just play a game that demands longer periods of concentration, skill, and touch. Doing it that way will provide a greater reward once you start accomplishing your goals.
Sorry, God I hate 9 ball.
Whew, I went away for a second, I'm back.