"Pocket size" is for the most part irrelevant.

JC

JC

Coos Cues
We always hear about pocket size. 4 inch pockets. 5 inch buckets etc. But when you come down to the fine details of what plays tough or not there's more than meets the eye.

Here is my latest revelation. I have a 9 foot diamond with pro cut pockets calibrated by the current scourge of the earth RKC. They measure 4.5 inches give or take. I had three sets of balls. Cyclop skittles, Centennial TV balls and Aramith pro. I rotate them about once a week. I see little difference. As the cloth broke in on this table I find if you skim the rail coming in too much the ball rattles. OK I guess. But can be a real run killer. So the other day I picked up a mint set of centennials from the 80s. The first day I had them on the table I ran 75 in straight pool practice. Hadn't done that in quite a while. Hey check me out! But then I noticed something subtle yet real. Some of those balls that were rattling before are falling. But why? Well I weighed and measured all the balls. They all weigh the same. But these old balls are twenty thousands of an inch smaller than all the new ones. Twenty thousandths? Really.

Well I'm here to tell you it makes a difference and it's huge if your runs are tending to die along the way with a rattled ball. This made me realize once and for all that all runs are not created equal. It made me wonder how many of Mosconi's balls on his infamous run would have rattled if just one little thing like this was different? One? Two? Well that's a deal killer isn't it? It also made me realize how futile it is to compare speeds with one another unless we're consistently in the same room competing.

I have heard balls mentioned in the past as a variable and kind of poo poo'ed it. Well never again.

And that folks is why we play the game.

JC
 
JC said:
But when you come down to the fine details

So the other day I picked up a mint set of centennials from the 80s. The first day I had them on the table I ran 75 in straight pool practice. Hadn't done that in quite a while. Hey check me out! But then I noticed something subtle yet real. Some of those balls that were rattling before are falling. But why? Well I weighed and measured all the balls. They all weigh the same. But these old balls are twenty thousands of an inch smaller than all the new ones. Twenty thousandths? Really.



JC
Click to expand...


Yes details, the balls you bought are not very mint are they?
You're lucky their just worn by .020. An old set like that can easily be worn much more. Your right though, small variables will change the game.

Rod
 
Stuff like this IMO is just probability. Someone will play jam up for a day or two, then try to find a cause for their improved play. Unless you can statistically show that you, and others, can play better with the old set (without anyone knowing they are smaller) then it's the same old "guesses" or placebos, or just wishful thinking.
 
Rod said:
Yes details, the balls you bought are not very mint are they?
You're lucky their just worn by .020. An old set like that can easily be worn much more. Your right though, small variables will change the game.

Rod
Click to expand...

Well they sure do look mint. And they were only played with at church on Sunday.

Small variables, huge difference.

JC
 
iusedtoberich said:
Stuff like this IMO is just probability. Someone will play jam up for a day or two, then try to find a cause for their improved play. Unless you can statistically show that you, and others, can play better with the old set (without anyone knowing they are smaller) then it's the same old "guesses" or placebos, or just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought at first too. It's not like the old story of the new cue though. I hit a ball and know it's going to rattle like the last 30 I hit like that and it goes in. And then it happens again later. It's no coincidence nor placebo. That's why the question of "what size are the pockets" is so foolish.

JC
 
I say this with all due respect...I really doubt twenty thousandths of an inch difference is enough to make a noticeable difference either in anyone's game, or the play of a pool table.
 
Candace said:
I say this with all due respect...I really doubt twenty thousandths of an inch difference is enough to make a noticeable difference either in anyone's game, or the play of a pool table.
Click to expand...

Your skepticism is not without merit.

I know it sounds silly but I didn't jump to that conclusion easily. I would have said the same thing if I didn't know better now.

JC
 
So, One twenty-thousandths of an inch is a more important determinant of pocketing success than half or three-quarters of an inch?

Riiiiight

Anyway, how the hell do you measure balls so precisely?
 
A micrometer or a caliper can measure them. That said...... Im thinking its not the size of the balls making them go in the pocket off the rail easier. I am guessing here, but I would think if anything, its the surface finish. Newer, slicker ball sliding more on the rails as opposed to a ball that has seen more use.
Chuck
 
Chuck Fields said:
A micrometer or a caliper can measure them. That said...... Im thinking its not the size of the balls making them go in the pocket off the rail easier. I am guessing here, but I would think if anything, its the surface finish. Newer, slicker ball sliding more on the rails as opposed to a ball that has seen more use.
Chuck
Click to expand...

If anything this is true. Especially on a pro cut when you skim the rail. Why does thar happen??? The objec ball gets spin after rail contact that effects how the ball reacts off the facing. It spins out of the hole, just enough to stay up.

No doubt you played better because new equipment held your focus better. I have had some great runs with a new tip or shaft. Just like you step up playing for 1000 or in a finals. Just human nature and know it or not, we all train ourselves to play this way. We dont have one game, there is more than one speed. The trick is being able to access that highest gear when it matters.
 
JC said:
Your skepticism is not without merit.

I know it sounds silly but I didn't jump to that conclusion easily. I would have said the same thing if I didn't know better now.

JC
Click to expand...

I appreciate your taking my skepticism in the positive light with which it was intended :)

The thing is, I think you may be making a logical causal conclusion that's really not able to be made, in this case. You said that the first day you tried these particular balls, you ran 75 in a row, an unexpected result. You then say that you know the balls made the difference, because you were able to duplicate the success later after repeating the experiment. But there's really no way to prove that using those balls is what directly led to your better result. It easily could've been a statistical fluke, or maybe you were just really on that day. Even if you could demonstrate that "every time I hit a regular ball it misses, and every time I hit one of these balls it goes in", there's no way to tell whether that's because of the balls, or whether it's because of the placebo effect someone else mentioned--in other words, the ball goes in because you believe it will go in because of the difference in size, and that confidence makes you shoot better ;)

If you believe the size makes a difference, that's great for you, since clearly it helps your game! :) But I wouldn't tell everyone that the smaller sized ball will affect everyone equally, since there's really no way to prove it in the general case for everyone.
 
JC said:
We always hear about pocket size. 4 inch pockets. 5 inch buckets etc. But when you come down to the fine details of what plays tough or not there's more than meets the eye.

Here is my latest revelation. I have a 9 foot diamond with pro cut pockets calibrated by the current scourge of the earth RKC. They measure 4.5 inches give or take. I had three sets of balls. Cyclop skittles, Centennial TV balls and Aramith pro. I rotate them about once a week. I see little difference. As the cloth broke in on this table I find if you skim the rail coming in too much the ball rattles. OK I guess. But can be a real run killer. So the other day I picked up a mint set of centennials from the 80s. The first day I had them on the table I ran 75 in straight pool practice. Hadn't done that in quite a while. Hey check me out! But then I noticed something subtle yet real. Some of those balls that were rattling before are falling. But why? Well I weighed and measured all the balls. They all weigh the same. But these old balls are twenty thousands of an inch smaller than all the new ones. Twenty thousandths? Really.

Well I'm here to tell you it makes a difference and it's huge if your runs are tending to die along the way with a rattled ball. This made me realize once and for all that all runs are not created equal. It made me wonder how many of Mosconi's balls on his infamous run would have rattled if just one little thing like this was different? One? Two? Well that's a deal killer isn't it? It also made me realize how futile it is to compare speeds with one another unless we're consistently in the same room competing.

I have heard balls mentioned in the past as a variable and kind of poo poo'ed it. Well never again.

And that folks is why we play the game.

JC
Click to expand...

I've got a friend with a GC1, or maybe it's a 3, with pockets that are 3-7/8 inches. Tell me again pocket size doesn't matter
 
JC said:
We always hear about pocket size. 4 inch pockets. 5 inch buckets etc. But when you come down to the fine details of what plays tough or not there's more than meets the eye.

Here is my latest revelation. I have a 9 foot diamond with pro cut pockets calibrated by the current scourge of the earth RKC. They measure 4.5 inches give or take. I had three sets of balls. Cyclop skittles, Centennial TV balls and Aramith pro. I rotate them about once a week. I see little difference. As the cloth broke in on this table I find if you skim the rail coming in too much the ball rattles. OK I guess. But can be a real run killer. So the other day I picked up a mint set of centennials from the 80s. The first day I had them on the table I ran 75 in straight pool practice. Hadn't done that in quite a while. Hey check me out! But then I noticed something subtle yet real. Some of those balls that were rattling before are falling. But why? Well I weighed and measured all the balls. They all weigh the same. But these old balls are twenty thousands of an inch smaller than all the new ones. Twenty thousandths? Really.

Well I'm here to tell you it makes a difference and it's huge if your runs are tending to die along the way with a rattled ball. This made me realize once and for all that all runs are not created equal. It made me wonder how many of Mosconi's balls on his infamous run would have rattled if just one little thing like this was different? One? Two? Well that's a deal killer isn't it? It also made me realize how futile it is to compare speeds with one another unless we're consistently in the same room competing.

I have heard balls mentioned in the past as a variable and kind of poo poo'ed it. Well never again.

And that folks is why we play the game.

JC
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be mean spirited here, as I agree with the notion that small changes in conditions, equipment, and fundamentals can cause BIG differences in results.

However, if you believe that playing with a set of balls that were smaller aided you in achieving a higher run, then wouldn't it follow that 5 inch pockets would better facilitate ball running in straight pool when compared to 4.5 in. pockets? :confused:

I agree with you that changing balls can effect runs in straight pool, especially if you are using NEW balls (and you said these balls were in MINT condition). To me this is one of the most important factors in straight pool, as balls that freeze are easier to break. Even small imperfections in a rack show up BIG TIME in straight pool IMHO.

However, just as changing balls in straight pool can have an effect on runs, I think changing pocket size does as well.

kollegedave
 
JC said:
We always hear about pocket size. 4 inch pockets. 5 inch buckets etc. But when you come down to the fine details of what plays tough or not there's more than meets the eye.

Here is my latest revelation. I have a 9 foot diamond with pro cut pockets calibrated by the current scourge of the earth RKC. They measure 4.5 inches give or take. I had three sets of balls. Cyclop skittles, Centennial TV balls and Aramith pro. I rotate them about once a week. I see little difference. As the cloth broke in on this table I find if you skim the rail coming in too much the ball rattles. OK I guess. But can be a real run killer. So the other day I picked up a mint set of centennials from the 80s. The first day I had them on the table I ran 75 in straight pool practice. Hadn't done that in quite a while. Hey check me out! But then I noticed something subtle yet real. Some of those balls that were rattling before are falling. But why? Well I weighed and measured all the balls. They all weigh the same. But these old balls are twenty thousands of an inch smaller than all the new ones. Twenty thousandths? Really.

Well I'm here to tell you it makes a difference and it's huge if your runs are tending to die along the way with a rattled ball. This made me realize once and for all that all runs are not created equal. It made me wonder how many of Mosconi's balls on his infamous run would have rattled if just one little thing like this was different? One? Two? Well that's a deal killer isn't it? It also made me realize how futile it is to compare speeds with one another unless we're consistently in the same room competing.

I have heard balls mentioned in the past as a variable and kind of poo poo'ed it. Well never again.

And that folks is why we play the game.

JC
Click to expand...


I doubt that that small a difference is the cause. A simple test would be to use them for a week and see if your performance remains at the higher level. I am guessing it will not.

Personally, I'd prefer to attribute it to "new ball" syndrome, sort of like "new cue" syndrome. Or it might just be the design of the Centennials. The apocryphal story behind them is that they were originally designed with the help of an ophthalmologist so that players could bring them into better focus more easily.

Lou Figueroa
 
kollegedave said:
I am not trying to be mean spirited here, as I agree with the notion that small changes in conditions, equipment, and fundamentals can cause BIG differences in results.

However, if you believe that playing with a set of balls that were smaller aided you in achieving a higher run, then wouldn't it follow that 5 inch pockets would better facilitate ball running in straight pool when compared to 4.5 in. pockets? :confused:

I agree with you that changing balls can effect runs in straight pool, especially if you are using NEW balls (and you said these balls were in MINT condition). To me this is one of the most important factors in straight pool, as balls that freeze are easier to break. Even small imperfections in a rack show up BIG TIME in straight pool IMHO.

However, just as changing balls in straight pool can have an effect on runs, I think changing pocket size does as well.

kollegedave
Click to expand...

This was the first thing I thought as well. How can you say 20 thousands of an inch in the ball size makes such a big difference but then say that a half an inch difference in pocket size is "irrelevant"? That makes no sense to me at all. I'm pretty sure that if you used the balls that were 20 thousands larger on a table with pockets that were 20 thousands larger you would see the same difference in play. Hence, pocket size is just as relevant as ball size, which is just logical.
 
I have just about every kind of high quality ball made. I am currently playing with a set of Cyclop balls on a Blue Label Diamond pro.

What I have observed that affects how all the balls react and go in the pocket is how well they are polished. Once they lose the high shine and polish they skid more and jaw more. It seems to me the increased friction makes the difference.

Bill S.
 
PaulieB said:
This was the first thing I thought as well. How can you say 20 thousands of an inch in the ball size makes such a big difference but then say that a half an inch difference in pocket size is "irrelevant"? That makes no sense to me at all. I'm pretty sure that if you used the balls that were 20 thousands larger on a table with pockets that were 20 thousands larger you would see the same difference in play. Hence, pocket size is just as relevant as ball size, which is just logical.
Click to expand...

I guess maybe I wasn't completely clear. What I meant is that pocket size is not the end all in the discussion of "tough" table conditions. And other seemingly minor things can make a huge difference. So when you hear someone try to tell you how tough a table is by quoting pocket size it doesn't mean that much. Of course if someone tightens a table to where a shot won't go in down the rail it makes a difference. But other minor factors may make that exact table even tougher or easier.

All the balls I own are in really nice shape and I clean them all the same way in the same ball cleaner. There is something dramatically easier about the old centennials and size is the only thing I can quantify. Maybe it's the composition of the material they are made out of? It's not the placebo effect as many suggest. I understand that concept well.

JC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top