Well the longer they stay the more booze they sell and they stay longer when their having fun making ball. Thats what made Gandy tables a hit they had buckets and people could make balls even if by accident.
Pocket Sizes Pros 4.25
- Thread starter Island Drive
- Start date
Well the longer they stay the more booze they sell and they stay longer when their having fun making ball. Thats what made Gandy tables a hit they had buckets and people could make balls even if by accident.
There are some guys that ask for One Pocket style tables in my area, it happens a lot, but I feel the pockets can be to tight for One Pocket too.
I agree, but keep in mind that 4 inch pockets on newly installed cloth really play more like 4-1/4 inch pockets on broken in cloth. For a week plus long tournament, 4 inch pockets will play significantly tougher by the time the finals is played, unless the cloth is recovered a 2nd time.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I just mean it’s pretty obvious the Diamonds play a significant amount more difficult.
This version we watched this weekend was great. Because it was on Rasson’s.
You definitely get a good understanding on this when you rework your own table like you have. I've mentioned the shelve depth to people at the pool hall I play at and they look at me like I'm talking a foriegn lanquage.
I saw a video a while back where Greg at diamond was explaining that their shelve depth is designed so that it will allow a cue ball to be around half hidden when buried in a pocket looking down the rail into a corner pocket. Most tables won't do that, I doubt rassons do.
Exactly, and that's my point. Posters on AZB keep citing pocket size as the determining factor of what the game is/was/should be, but the struggle is a lack of consistency in another variable that at this moment in time MR can't do anything about.
Diamond has their take on how a table should play, Rasson another. 4.25" on a Diamond seems good, but a bucket on a Rasson. 4" great on a Rasson, nightmare on Diamond. So currently we (MR) needs to use variable spec's based on equipment for sake of presenting a consistent playability for their tour. This is confusing for Joe SixPack, because they don't understand why and there's zero effort made to explain why. All the viewers/posters know is that MR "has played with the pockets again", and sometimes the pros suffer.
What I hope is MR builds enough clout to force the hand of manufacturers into building their equipment to "MR standard". Call it the "pro standard" if that sits better with you.
The Rassons at the recent Worlds is what I would prefer to watch. Great balance of playability and respect for the small target. What are the odds that Diamond would alter their manufacturing to match that performance...?
I think Diamond's kool-aid is strong. One of the best tricks to make people think what you're doing is the right way, is to speak as though the short comings are improvements or features. At one time, at least in NA, Gold Crown was the defacto standard. Diamond came along and built a better table. Along with it they altered other aspects that consumers just ate up as "what it's supposed to be", since the rest was an improvement. Now we're here.
Fortunately for professional pool, MR isn't a NA entity. So beyond logistics and NA brand recognition, they aren't married to Diamond at all. Once MR's brand becomes strong enough in NA and they aren't bound by logistics. My hope is we can eventually see a Diamond model that adheres to an international professional standard. Not just what Diamond has been touting as a "pro-cut" table.
All that said, it sounds like I'm anti-Diamond. Truth be told I've never been a big fan of how they play. However my bias in favouring Rasson is solely based on recent performance on the biggest stage, and wanting consistent specs. If the tables played the same but Diamond had been down the side, then I'd be calling on Rasson to tweak their build to match.
Last edited:
agree 100%. they don't stay near as long when they can't make a ball. i'd say 90%+ of Magoo's customers have zero intent on getting better or playing in compet. pool with buckets is a hard game to learn, why make it harder for fun players?
Chris here's my GCI rebuilt by Dave Isaacs even the top rail underwood has been replaced
Dave is doing the set up at the US Open in Atlantic city 2024.
Edit.... 12-14-24.... Dave also did the set up at the International/St Augustine FL.
The corner pockets are 4.5 teet to teet.
Broken/worn in 860HR Simonis cloth, they play tougher than 4.25 new cloth all day long when shooting down the rail.
Reason.... as I'm sure you know, the rail nose when worn in, clings slightly to the object ball creating object ball rotation.
I'm good with 4.25 all the way around for the pros, especially during play at weeks end, with worn conditions, dirt/oil/cleaning/worn balls (pitting from chalk embedded into each round surface).... and the increase in Humidity due to crowd size.
Last edited:
Ghost of OBC
Well-known member
This whole situation is a funny replay of the PGA tour in the 90s. Tiger hit the ball so far, they decided to "Tiger-proof" all the courses in rotation, which is to say, make them longer. Tiger should have paid them for this Tiger-proofing, because all it did in the short term was ensure only the longest hitters could win. Fast forward 20 years and all the top guys are either tall or jacked. Distance is king, pound and gouge (a hideous one-dimensional form of golf) dominates, driver technology is racing to give the average duffer 280+ off the tee, etc. The result is that lots and lots of courses are too short and can't be extended anymore, so we have the USGA dialing back the ball. Making a game one-dimensional under the aegis of making it harder wasn't a good move after all.
Just like pro vs. am golf there is a HUGE divide between pro vs. am pool. Weekend hack golfers need all the help clubwise and course-wise they can get. So too do weekend hack pool players need softer tables to play on.
Yeah our number one Pool hall is going to reduce all the Pockets to 4'' on the 9footers, I think he'll regret it.
Yep, like another said, the table for ''water drinkers''. 
without a doubt. have a couple sure but not all.
What's the standard supposed to be . WPA says shelf could be between 1" and 2.25".
4.25 all the way around seems to be realistic.
and how crazy unrealistic is that range...? "This" or over "125% as much"... another example of how unless they are
That said, I don't know the answer. Just that how the Rassons played at the worlds seemed perfect to me. ...and that shelf depth is a product of pocket size and slate size.
On tables that are manufactured in the same manner.
I think you can get away with 4" pockets on a GC but not on Diamonds. You have to be able to "cheat" the pocket somewhat to consistently run out. What is not looked at is that you can't just close the pocket up with facings. Rather you have to re-cusion the rails so that only one set of facings are placed on the rail. Otherwise when you miss, you want the ball to have an opportunity to leave the pocket area not just sit there.