Pocket Facing Angles - Why Not Parallel?

Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fargo 1000 on VP4
Silver Member
Pocket specs say the back (throat) of the pocket opening should be narrower than the front (mouth), apparently so the pocket will reject some balls that hit the facing at the "wrong" speed/angle. My question: the ball has to get past the mouth to hit a facing - why isn't that good enough?

pj <- way too much time
chgo
 
I've seen a table with fairly small pockets and parallel facings and it seemed to play easier than a table with more standard pockets. I think the best kind of pocket would be about the same effective size from all directions and be insensitive to speed.
 
Like air hockey. When its in, it's in.

In the recently posted Earl interview he talked about how he gaffed table pockets by 'flairing them ' to rook his opponents.
 
broken record:
.25 graph paper, no math...

IMG_0210.jpg


No facings. You could angle in for structure but other than that, this seems to be the minimum all access aperture. So simple, Me figured it. Is there a spec for minimum all access aperture on regular pockets?
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Pocket specs say the back (throat) of the pocket opening should be narrower than the front (mouth), apparently so the pocket will reject some balls that hit the facing at the "wrong" speed/angle. My question: the ball has to get past the mouth to hit a facing - why isn't that good enough?

pj <- way too much time
chgo
Click to expand...

Did you want the ball to hit the facing first then then fall in the mouth? That would make the pocket even larger.

In Russian pyramid balls have to be shot within a tight margin straight into the pocket. There is little tolerance, failure to stay within tolerance is ball rejection.
 
straightline said:
broken record:
.25 graph paper, no math...

View attachment 687343

No facings. You could angle in for structure but other than that, this seems to be the minimum all access aperture. So simple, Me figured it. Is there a spec for minimum all access aperture on regular pockets?
Click to expand...
With no facings in the way I think the pocket mouth could be 3” or even less (down-the-rail opening 2”) and still accept all comers.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Pocket specs say the back (throat) of the pocket opening should be narrower than the front (mouth), apparently so the pocket will reject some balls that hit the facing at the "wrong" speed/angle. My question: the ball has to get past the mouth to hit a facing - why isn't that good enough?

pj <- way too much time
chgo
Click to expand...
Completely parallel pocket facing angles on 5” pockets would play ridiculously easy, and even too forgiving on 4-1/2” Diamond cut pockets. On 4” pockets, parallel pocket facing angles would play pretty good, but still too easy for pro level players.
 
In the early tables, 45 degree pocket angles (parallel) were probably the first chosen. It just makes intuitive sense that would be the first angle tried. If true, then for at least the period of the "modern" tables starting in the 1950's, it was long gone. Brunswick and the other early manufacturers probably tried every pocket configuration, and settled on the typical Gold Crown style pocket for commercial tables.
 
Standard Brunswick pockets are mostly all I've come across. Never gave 100% on 'em simply because you could hit balls bad and they'd still go. 7 footers had slightly more attraction because while aiming was a non issue, position often had to be dead on.
 
90º pocket edges accept balls rolling down the rail at 30 MPH.

So the angulation is there to make the pockets a bit tougher.
 
iusedtoberich said:
In the early tables, 45 degree pocket angles (parallel) were probably the first chosen. It just makes intuitive sense that would be the first angle tried. If true, then for at least the period of the "modern" tables starting in the 1950's, it was long gone. Brunswick and the other early manufacturers probably tried every pocket configuration, and settled on the typical Gold Crown style pocket for commercial tables.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great question. The pool tables of the early days, like those used for American 4-ball in the first half of the 19th century, had snooker-style facings (or vice versa of course given the later invention of snooker).

I'm fairly certain it what Michael Phelan who came up with the idea of non-curved facings for pocket billiards to make it easier. He talks about the facing problem--and its impact on potting--in this 1858 patent. FIG. 2 (which he claims as new) looks familiar today.


1676172111231.png
 
kling&allen said:
I think this is a great question. The pool tables of the early days, like those used for American 4-ball in the first half of the 19th century, had snooker-style facings (or vice versa of course given the later invention of snooker).

I'm fairly certain it what Michael Phelan who came up with the idea of non-curved facings for pocket billiards to make it easier. He talks about the facing problem--and its impact on potting--in this 1858 patent. FIG. 2 (which he claims as new) looks familiar today.


View attachment 687778
Click to expand...
Does he have a diagram of the corner pockets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top