My thought on tourney tour and tight pockets

u12armresl

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
I think that there should be 2 events a year with the tighter pockets, like PGA does with the big 4.
They can set up tables different, older cloth, newer cloth, different cloth, ball sets, racks, break boxes, etc.

To win the big ones you have to play incredible, you may get one of the outlier tourneys and just play good.
 
So this hasn't gotten much traction , but something I do think needs to be done to keep the 'majors' special is to differentiate them somehow beyond where they are located.

All of the big open 256 player fields tournaments feel nearly identical as an online viewer. Having US open tightest pockets, and toughest conditions similar to golf is a good idea IMO.

I am uncertain though how one could come up with ways for the Spanish, German, Asian open e.t.c to be all slightly different and something unique at each in terms of format or conditions
 
Cameron Smith said:
I say 4” pockets for most events and 2.2” for majors. Make them hop over the points to pot the balls.
Click to expand...
Now you're talking Russian Pyramid.

1696389880045.png
 
Chinese'll be the first. They're half way there with the Heyball. Murkins better have a cribsheet of Country Western titles ready...
I play pool. I don't do needlepoant...

I'm too much man for them leetle holes...
etc...
 
MitchAlsup said:
My vote is for a single tight standard pocket size applicable to all play.
Click to expand...
Sounds great but imo that doesn't work. JoePublic recreational players need pockets bigger than top players. My home spot has GC4's that are too tight and i see it every day, folks come in and struggle to make balls at all. Can't be fun. Most of them gravitate to the bb's with 'comfort pockets'. For average play 4.5" is a good medium but even that is tight for a lot of fun players.
 
garczar said:
Sounds great but imo that doesn't work. JoePublic recreational players need pockets bigger than top players. My home spot has GC4's that are too tight and i see it every day, folks come in and struggle to make balls at all. Can't be fun. Most of them gravitate to the bb's with 'comfort pockets'. For average play 4.5" is a good medium but even that is tight for a lot of fun players.
Click to expand...
I think Diamond has done that correctly with League cut 4 3/4 and Pro cut 4 1/2. You can order special cut pockets at 4 1/8 or 4 1/4 which is perfect for 1P or special events. I’ve played on several tables that are less than 4”, they’re stupid tight and bad even for 1P.
 
I like 4.75" for league - it keeps the fun in the game for multi rail and banks. For professionals, 4.5" is good enough. Otherwise, just go to 6'x12' Snooker or Russian Game.

Sent from my SM-F936U using Tapatalk
 
docgpmiller said:
I like 4.75" for league - it keeps the fun in the game for multi rail and banks. For professionals, 4.5" is good enough. Otherwise, just go to 6'x12' Snooker or Russian Game.

Sent from my SM-F936U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
'Professional' can be a somewhat nebulous category. For the truly elite world-class players 4"-4.25" is fine for rotation games. Most avid players can deal with 4.5 but for JoeBallbanger i agree that 4.75-5 makes more sense. Really is no one size fits all.
 
ld push to say have the pocket angles reject balls more in addition to tighter pockets.

Pool tables you can bank off some pocket angles. Players that cant hit dead center should understand its a standard competition ability at world class level.
 
docgpmiller said:
I like 4.75" for league - it keeps the fun in the game for multi rail and banks. For professionals, 4.5" is good enough. Otherwise, just go to 6'x12' Snooker or Russian Game.

Sent from my SM-F936U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
4.5" is absolutely NOT good enough. Good amateur players can run 5 packs on those size pockets, and pros should get a payoff for their superior pocketing abilities. Plus, absolutely nothing wrong with having a little bit of play post break. Contests between elite pros should not just be "runout derbies" where the first player to break gets an automatic 5-7 game lead. There are other skills to test, other than the break.
 
4" pockets are fine, getting rid of the jump cue and shot altogether would also make the game better my opinion which I know will not be shared widely on this forum. Also a mandatory 30 second shot clock on all matches would also be welcomed.
 
L.S. Dennis said:
4" pockets are fine, getting rid of the jump cue and shot altogether would also make the game better my opinion which I know will not be shared widely on this forum. Also a mandatory 30 second shot clock on all matches would also be welcomed.
Click to expand...
Jump shot with regular playing cue is ok. I like DCC rules regarding this. 4" wickets are fine for elite level players.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
4.5" is absolutely NOT good enough. Good amateur players can run 5 packs on those size pockets, and pros should get a payoff for their superior pocketing abilities. Plus, absolutely nothing wrong with having a little bit of play post break. Contests between elite pros should not just be "runout derbies" where the first player to break gets an automatic 5-7 game lead. There are other skills to test, other than the break.
Click to expand...
All these packages are vastly over-exxaggerated. Even in the Brunswick days players were not running out the sets with regularity. It was a once in a blue moon for a player to put up over a 3 pack. We have how many years of Pro Cut Diamond data? DCC started in 1999. What's been the highest package on the TV table? DCC even had a rule all the years it was race to 7, before the WPA bullshit sanctioning changed it to 9, that if a player runs out the set, the other player has the chance to do the same. In 20 years it has never happened once to run a 7 pack.
 
Maybe the most in stroke match of all time was TAR 1 exposing Shane to the world. That was on standard Diamond pro cut pockets. What was Shane's highest package? A 7 I believe. Corey was widely considered to be #1 or #2 (Archer) in the USA at that time. What was his highest package on that table, maybe a 3 If I'm remembering.
 
iusedtoberich said:
All these packages are vastly over-exxaggerated. Even in the Brunswick days players were not running out the sets with regularity. It was a once in a blue moon for a player to put up over a 3 pack. We have how many years of Pro Cut Diamond data? DCC started in 1999. What's been the highest package on the TV table? DCC even had a rule all the years it was race to 7, before the WPA bullshit sanctioning changed it to 9, that if a player runs out the set, the other player has the chance to do the same. In 20 years it has never happened once to run a 7 pack.
Click to expand...
Yep. Watch these old matches on AccuStats. Guys weren't running big packages on tables easier than those of today. I don't know what pool that guy watches. Must be fantasy league. I keep that guy on Ignore. Most of statements are loony fringe nonsense. Definitely rides a short bus.
 
I like the notion of 4.25" for the majority of pro events, and reserving the 4"ers for "majors". Whatever we deem majors to be.

Not that it's relevant to pocket sizing. However jump cues stay, but limited to first shot of inning. Potentially gets you out of a poorly done safety but doesn't bail out you're own mistake.
 
The_JV said:
I like the notion of 4.25" for the majority of pro events, and reserving the 4"ers for "majors". Whatever we deem majors to be.

Not that it's relevant to pocket sizing. However jump cues stay, but limited to first shot of inning. Potentially gets you out of a poorly done safety but doesn't bail out you're own mistake.
Click to expand...
They'd have to be allowed as part of a sequence. Ok maybe not but the exception should be allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top