Pocket design on GC's

Straightpool_99

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
I've seen a lot of strange misses, both lately and in the past, especially on GC tables. I've always attributed it to having the ball brush the rail on the way in, or even the point. But, lately I've tried filming with my phone and even watching youtube matches in slow motion to try to determine wether a ball was actually missed or rejected by the pocket and the results were pretty surprising. Many of the misses hit deep in the pocket, but got spit out!

This problem comes into play when the balls are close to the rail and has to be shot with a lot of power. Pocket design doesn't matter so much when you are shooting into an open pocket and not the facing, obviously and the shallow shelf will allow very poorly hit balls to be pocketed at slow speeds.

As a decent player, one always adjusts to the conditions, and people obviously learn to shoot softly, especially on tightned Brunswicks. I got a huge surprise, playing on Diamonds (pro cut) and finding the actually to an easier table when the balls were on or close to the rail, especially at speed! This was the opposite result to what I expected, especially considering the shelf!

My question to the forum would be: Is this the correct way to design a pocket? Should a ball inside the points be rejected because of speed, or should it always go in? I know someone will bring up snooker, sooner or later. Yes, it's true, a tight snooker table will often reject ballls at speed along the rail, but it's a very different game, anyway. I believe Bonus Ball had an altered pocket geometry to pocket this issue?

This is a typical GC "miss" where the ball hits the middle of the facing and gets spit out! While this pocket is huge (and a better hit could be made), on a tighter table this gets exaggerated a lot and often it seems even a middle-of-the-pocket-hit can be rejected this way.
https://youtu.be/0L9RbYERqQg?t=8237
 
Last edited:
Snowflake or not, it sounds like 99 has been playing on my GC IV. My neighborhood clubhouse has two new 9' Connelly's that suck down balls like a Shop-Vac was hooked up to the pockets. The bad news is it works that way for everyone else too.

Gold Crown = pocket speed or no rail first shots.
 
My GCI played like that with the original big Brunswick pockets but since I had new cushions, sub-rail modifications, and pockets re-mitered and tightened to a little under 4 1/2" it takes balls much better. They will still rattle out if you clip the rail on the way in at speed but if you hit the facing first the ball is going in the pocket. It drove my crazy that a pocket that large would refuse a ball in its original configuration.
 
Buzzard II said:
Snowflake or not, it sounds like 99 has been playing on my GC IV. My neighborhood clubhouse has two new 9' Connelly's that suck down balls like a Shop-Vac was hooked up to the pockets. The bad news is it works that way for everyone else too.

Gold Crown = pocket speed or no rail first shots.
Click to expand...

I found it to be the opposite, and had this problem with diamonds

Edit to add - I've NEVER slow rolled balls
 
If you pause on that Strickland shot you will see that he hit ball very close to the point of the pocket, not in the middle of the facing... and he hit it very hard. The correct shot there would have been to overcut the ball with top right and go to the bottom rail. He had enough angle and could have hit it softer......
 
poolhustler said:
If you pause on that Strickland shot you will see that he hit ball very close to the point of the pocket, not in the middle of the facing... and he hit it very hard. The correct shot there would have been to overcut the ball with top right and go to the bottom rail. He had enough angle and could have hit it softer......
Click to expand...
AND the object ball was about an inch from the side rail as it was traveling towards the corner pocket, so if it had been angled more towards the throat of the pocket, instead of the outer half where the cushion facing is the weakest it would have never been rattled....so you're 100% right....it's not always the tables fault when someone misses a shot:thumbup:
 
poolhustler said:
If you pause on that Strickland shot you will see that he hit ball very close to the point of the pocket, not in the middle of the facing... and he hit it very hard. The correct shot there would have been to overcut the ball with top right and go to the bottom rail. He had enough angle and could have hit it softer......
Click to expand...

Yep...my thoughts exactly...no need to hit it that hard or draw it
 
Straightpool_99 said:
This is a typical GC "miss" where the ball hits the middle of the facing and gets spit out! While this pocket is huge (and a better hit could be made), on a tighter table this gets exaggerated a lot and often it seems even a middle-of-the-pocket-hit can be rejected this way.
https://youtu.be/0L9RbYERqQg?t=8237
Click to expand...



Poorly played. He missed the shot.

I'll bet he would tell you that if you asked him. :wink:



As for the GC pockets. I grew up playing them so I guess they are as they are supposed to be. People want to "fix" the tables so the pockets take balls more easily? Yup. Common.


I like GCs.





.
 
tim913 said:
Or you could say he hit it BAD because he hit it hard to draw it that far....no need for either
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't!

He hit it bad plain and simple. People say this crap all the time and it's completely untrue.
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
No, you couldn't!

He hit it bad plain and simple. People say this crap all the time and it's completely untrue.
Jason
Click to expand...

Anytime you add complexity to any task you lower your chances of completing that task successfully. If he would have just used a soft follow off the long then short rail he probably could have made that shot 100 times in a row. Now you add....hit it hard enough to draw it all the way to the bottom rail, draw it with the correct spin to take it to the nine ball off the bottom rail, watch your accuracy because the pocket may not accept the ball at a higher speed vs pocket speed. Sure he hit it BAD but there are a lot of factors...why do you think they say KISS?
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I've seen a lot of strange misses, both lately and in the past, especially on GC tables. I've always attributed it to having the ball brush the rail on the way in, or even the point. But, lately I've tried filming with my phone and even watching youtube matches in slow motion to try to determine wether a ball was actually missed or rejected by the pocket and the results were pretty surprising. Many of the misses hit deep in the pocket, but got spit out!

This problem comes into play when the balls are close to the rail and has to be shot with a lot of power. Pocket design doesn't matter so much when you are shooting into an open pocket and not the facing, obviously and the shallow shelf will allow very poorly hit balls to be pocketed at slow speeds.

As a decent player, one always adjusts to the conditions, and people obviously learn to shoot softly, especially on tightned Brunswicks. I got a huge surprise, playing on Diamonds (pro cut) and finding the actually to an easier table when the balls were on or close to the rail, especially at speed! This was the opposite result to what I expected, especially considering the shelf!

My question to the forum would be: Is this the correct way to design a pocket? Should a ball inside the points be rejected because of speed, or should it always go in? I know someone will bring up snooker, sooner or later. Yes, it's true, a tight snooker table will often reject ballls at speed along the rail, but it's a very different game, anyway. I believe Bonus Ball had an altered pocket geometry to pocket this issue?

This is a typical GC "miss" where the ball hits the middle of the facing and gets spit out! While this pocket is huge (and a better hit could be made), on a tighter table this gets exaggerated a lot and often it seems even a middle-of-the-pocket-hit can be rejected this way.
https://youtu.be/0L9RbYERqQg?t=8237
Click to expand...

Hitting the ball parallel to the rail like that, one would miss it a thousand times in a row on my Brunswick. The only way to make the ball at that speed is to shoot it angled towards the rail, just missing the point going in - in short, to perfection. I don't believe it's a fault of the cut of the pockets if they don't accept the shot any other way (a Snooker table corner pocket wouldn't either). What I do like about it is that wherever I go play tournaments, the same type of shot tends to be much easier, making me feel well-prepared.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
tim913 said:
Anytime you add complexity to any task you lower your chances of completing that task successfully. If he would have just used a soft follow off the long then short rail he probably could have made that shot 100 times in a row. Now you add....hit it hard enough to draw it all the way to the bottom rail, draw it with the correct spin to take it to the nine ball off the bottom rail, watch your accuracy because the pocket may not accept the ball at a higher speed vs pocket speed. Sure he hit it BAD but there are a lot of factors...why do you think they say KISS?
Click to expand...

Low left easy peasy.

This is a shot thats really simple to make and get shape, he just hit it bad. Speed has nothing to do with it. Anybody that can play at all can make this shot all day long.

Sometimes people miss. If you're saying one of the greatest shot makers in history hit this too hard......I don't know what to say
Jason
 
acousticsguru said:
Hitting the ball parallel to the rail like that, one would miss it a thousand times in a row on my Brunswick. The only way to make the ball at that speed is to shoot it angled towards the rail, just missing the point going in - in short, to perfection. I don't believe it's a fault of the cut of the pockets if they don't accept the shot any other way (a Snooker table corner pocket wouldn't either). What I do like about it is that wherever I go play tournaments, the same type of shot tends to be much easier, making me feel well-prepared.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Click to expand...

Hitting the ball on ANY table into the point is gonna be a miss.
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
Hitting the ball on ANY table into the point is gonna be a miss.
Jason
Click to expand...

Sure, but here the point was hitting it perfectly parallel along the rail with speed versus inward just missing the point.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
jasonlaus said:
Low left easy peasy.

This is a shot thats really simple to make and get shape, he just hit it bad. Speed has nothing to do with it. Anybody that can play at all can make this shot all day long.

Sometimes people miss. If you're saying one of the greatest shot makers in history hit this too hard......I don't know what to say
Jason
Click to expand...

Finally something we can both agree on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top