blalalalalhaaha
Sorry, God I hate 9 ball.Whew, I went away for a second, I'm back.
You are just hatin coz he is a ball better than you!:wink:
How tight is three and a quarter inch pockets?
- Thread starter paksat
- Start date
You are just hatin coz he is a ball better than you!:wink:
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.
I can't stand 9 ball either. Although rotation is a fine game, it should be played the right way ( 10 ball with the option )
As for straight pool, I wish I had the time
3.5" pockets is small enough to play 3-cushion. In fact, I think that's the only game you could truly enjoy on a table like that.
And where is this table anyway?
I agree with Jay - too tight to be worth playing on. Takes too much away from the game. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't really understand why one would want to play on a table that has different specs than what is used in most tourneys.
It's probably fine to play on tougher tables every now and again, but you won't be cheating the pockets much, which is an important aspect of pool, imo.
I can't stand 9 ball either. Although rotation is a fine game, it should be played the right way ( 10 ball with the option )
As for straight pool, I wish I had the time
What's wrong with 15 ball rotation?
And what's "the option"?
to return the shot to the player, if he fails to execute a called shot.
It is MUCH tighter than a world regulation snooker table....they are 3.5 at
the fall...with a ball that is smaller, 2 & 1/16.
Theses pockets are more like 'trap' snooker tables.
I've never found any reason to play on them, other than action.
I would never play for pleasure on them.:angry:
Then again cheating the pocket is more often then not required sue to less then ideal shape play and not getting on the proper angle to get shape on the next ball. Tightening the pockets would not stop people from stroking in balls, but it would make them take alot more care in their shape play and be less sloppy in that aspect of the game.
That said, 3.25 is too tight. I want to see 10 foot diamond tables with 4.25 inch pockets fir pro pool, that would cause a complete paradigm shift in the way this game is played, viewed, and we would finally have the equipment to learn who is truly the best (keeping the races the same length).
Lol, for sure! My home table has four inch pockets with diamond specs and it is brutal. It's great for drills and practice because you can sharpen your shotmaking, but running racks is frustrating.
Making a ball down the rail is especially tough with less than half an inch to spare. One pocket banks down by the short rail are a challenge. Genomachino played on it and said it was a really tough table to practice on.
And this is with four inch pockets! Anything smaller would be counter productive. You'd roll too many balls and mentally would not get used to pocketing a lot of balls in a row. You'd be shooting two or three and stop, causing your rhythm to suffer. Not to mention your lack of confidence because you're missing a lot of shots.
For practicing certain shots or drills, maybe. Four inch is the smallest for sure.
Best,
Mike
Originial piost says it's a diamond 9-footer. Never seen a diamond with pockets cut the way your diagram suggests is possible.
Mike - FWIW, a table modified to "Diamond specs" and a standard Diamond Pro or Pro Am table are two quite different tables to play on... due to the pocket shelf depth (assuming the same pocket throat width).
My buddy has a 9' GC III modified to "Diamond specs" (by RKC) with std Pro Cut 4.5" wide corner pockets... and it plays easier than does my 9' Diamond Pro Am with the same sized pockets.
The not-as-deep shelf on the GC allows quite a few more balls to be made than on the Diamond, which has deeper shelves.
Not sayin' that your table isn't tough... I'm sure that it is with 4" corner pockets... but there is a difference as I described.
I stand corrected. :thumbup2:
I have a Brunswick Centennial with 4 1/8" pockets. It plays fine. This table does have short shelves. A ball on the rail has 9/16" clearance (total) from the opposite pocket point.
Diamonds have significantly deeper shelfs. 4" pockets on a Diamond would be tough but playable (Barely). If the pockets were reduced to 3.25", the clearance for a ball hit down the rail would be around 1/16". This pocket would cause more pissed off players than Olhausen. :wink:
Someone check my math. (I'm a product of the public edu-macation system).
Diamonds have significantly deeper shelfs. 4" pockets on a Diamond would be tough but playable (Barely). If the pockets were reduced to 3.25", the clearance for a ball hit down the rail would be around 1/16". This pocket would cause more pissed off players than Olhausen. :wink:
Someone check my math. (I'm a product of the public edu-macation system).
Somewhere around my computers (work laptop, work desk top or home desk top), I have a photo that RKC took of one of the corner pockets of the "1-pocket table" at the Golden Fleece here in the Seattle area.
Glen extended the rails of a standard 9' Pro Am to achieve 3 7/8" wide corner pockets.
I'll keep looking for it... and I'll post it if I can find it.
Glen extended the rails of a standard 9' Pro Am to achieve 3 7/8" wide corner pockets.
I'll keep looking for it... and I'll post it if I can find it.