Pockets for 14.1?

SpiderWebComm

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I hope this isn't too close to Center Pocket's thread below.

I have a GC4 with pockets that are a hair below 4.5" with 760 Simonis (my table is quick as hell). I practice like hell on it and I rarely get into the upper 40's or 50's and only got 62 one time during the last 2 years I've had the table.

Last night, I played on a friend's Gandy and I ran 49 with EASE. As a matter of fact, the table "got" me. I shot a ball into the face of the pocket on purpose and the ball shot straight back at me (weird). If that didn't happen, I think I'd still be running balls right now. I think if I played on his table for a day, I'd get a high run FOR SURE.

So here's my question to the great 14.1 players on here like Schmidt, Marop, Lipsky, BJ, etc:

Is it better to run fewer balls on tougher equipment or run a ton of balls on a peach-basket table? If you're going to brag about a high run, is there a minimum pocket size that should be used just to "qualify?" I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, isn't it like playing a round of golf with 8" holes?

I see other guys getting huge runs on easier tables and I'm thinking if I shouldn't find a wide-open table just to feed my ego.

Dave
 
I agree with this too. This was what I was hinting at in my thread. I feel once I get my diamond pro am, if I can run 50 on it I stand a good chance to win alot of the 14.1 tournaments in my state. My goal is to run 100 and I will work hard at it. Hell if i can run 100 on a diamond I should be hella good shape.
 
It depends on what your trying to accomplish. As I stated earlier, everybody with a career high run over 200 did it on a table that had around 5 inch pockets (typical gold crown)

Engert 494
Hohmann 404
Schmidt 403
Ortman, Mizerak, Sigel, West, Barouty, Lipsky, Etc....

When straight pool was the common game, this was the typical pocket size. New York has a lot of great straight pool players, most all play at Amsterdam (Standard GC's with 5 inch pockets).

So if you are looking for a career high run to compare yourself with best straight pool players ever than you need to play on similiar equipment. If you are looking to improve your pocketing ability than play on a tight table, but don't always preface your high run by saying it would of been higher if you were on a loose table, how do you know it have been. You are comparing apples to oranges. The pressure when you are approaching 100 makes 5 inch pockets look small.

All the accu-stats 14.1 tournaments were played on fairly loose equipment with new cloth and new, clean balls. This leads to high runs but there were very few 100+ runs at all thoses tournaments and these are the best players in the world.

I shimmed my pockets to just a little bigger than 4.5 inchs but I put on new cloth once a year and polish the balls daily, climate controlled room with low humidity so the table plays way easier than 4.5 inch pockets under less than ideal conditions. John keeps telling me to put it back to 5 inches so I can hopefully run 150 one day. I'm probably going to due it and then lock him in the room for a month so he can take a run at 526 on video.

Bill
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I hope this isn't too close to Center Pocket's thread below.

I have a GC4 with pockets that are a hair below 4.5" with 760 Simonis (my table is quick as hell). I practice like hell on it and I rarely get into the upper 40's or 50's and only got 62 one time during the last 2 years I've had the table.

Last night, I played on a friend's Gandy and I ran 49 with EASE. As a matter of fact, the table "got" me. I shot a ball into the face of the pocket on purpose and the ball shot straight back at me (weird). If that didn't happen, I think I'd still be running balls right now. I think if I played on his table for a day, I'd get a high run FOR SURE.

So here's my question to the great 14.1 players on here like Schmidt, Marop, Lipsky, BJ, etc:

Is it better to run fewer balls on tougher equipment or run a ton of balls on a peach-basket table? If you're going to brag about a high run, is there a minimum pocket size that should be used just to "qualify?" I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, isn't it like playing a round of golf with 8" holes?

I see other guys getting huge runs on easier tables and I'm thinking if I shouldn't find a wide-open table just to feed my ego.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

I'm in a similar spot to your situation with a home table.(GC3 with 4 1/4" pockets, 860 sim).

I too struggle to shoot anywhere near average runs on this table. Only once have I run more than 1/2 of my high run on this home table :eek:

It has taken me a couple of years for my ego to come to terms with this. :mad:

While on one hand it is very frustrating, the upside is that when I compete in tournament play it becomes relatively easier.

Just imagine if it was the other way around.....shooting at buckets at home, them at "mouses arseholes" in match play :grin:

In my opinion the "true value" of a run relative to the table's pocket size is somewhat secondary. All that matters to me is whether I beat my opponent while we are both playing with same pocket size.

I would certainly attach more significance to a run of 300 on 4 1/4" pockets than a run of 400 on 4 3/4" pockets.

Thanks.

Bernie Pettipiece.
 
hi

Marop said:
It depends on what your trying to accomplish. As I stated earlier, everybody with a career high run over 200 did it on a table that had around 5 inch pockets (typical gold crown)

Engert 494
Hohmann 404
Schmidt 403
Ortman, Mizerak, Sigel, West, Barouty, Lipsky, Etc....

When straight pool was the common game, this was the typical pocket size. New York has a lot of great straight pool players, most all play at Amsterdam (Standard GC's with 5 inch pockets).

So if you are looking for a career high run to compare yourself with best straight pool players ever than you need to play on similiar equipment. If you are looking to improve your pocketing ability than play on a tight table, but don't always preface your high run by saying it would of been higher if you were on a loose table, how do you know it have been. You are comparing apples to oranges. The pressure when you are approaching 100 makes 5 inch pockets look small.

All the accu-stats 14.1 tournaments were played on fairly loose equipment with new cloth and new, clean balls. This leads to high runs but there were very few 100+ runs at all thoses tournaments and these are the best players in the world.

I shimmed my pockets to just a little bigger than 4.5 inchs but I put on new cloth once a year and polish the balls daily, climate controlled room with low humidity so the table plays way easier than 4.5 inch pockets under less than ideal conditions. John keeps telling me to put it back to 5 inches so I can hopefully run 150 one day. I'm probably going to due it and then lock him in the room for a month so he can take a run at 526 on video.

Bill
Click to expand...

spot on billy boy.
i think the way for people to compare is get 5 inch pockets,new cloth ,polished balls and run as many as you can.its good for confidence.
thing is though to run 300plus takes so much,knowledge,execution,stamina,luck,fortitude,perfect conditions that if someone is fortunate enough to do it they will realize how brutal it is big pockets or not.

funny thing is i see alot of guys at the poolroom want to play on the one tight table in there. its almost always someone whos not a accomplished player yet.

i say go run over 200 a few times and then maybe worry about smaller pockets.
hey i miss balls on 5 inch holes and im one of the better players on my block.if its tough enough for me i say rock on people play on 5 inch and post a big number.it might not end up as big a number as youd think.this damn 14.1 is hard big pockets or not.
 
Love the post i have just started playing 14:1. My table is a pinnacle with 860 and 4 1/2 in. pockets. High run of 62. This game is tought!!!!
 
It's an interesting topic. I've never been a fan of supertough pockets, especially for straight pool. The game is all about runs, not playing 20-and-safe. Who wants to watch that?

This said, with the world's best, pockets which are too large can be unfair. You should have the expectation of maybe two open innings in every game you play. It should be a rare thing when you don't - not impossible, but rare. One of the things I loved about the Diamonds is that this expectation usually held true. I didn't care who I was playing, I was probably going to get a few innings.

I only have anecdotal evidence of what I am about to say, but here goes: I know a few people who have home tables and super tight pockets (4" or less) and when they show up to Amsterdam, I don't consider them to be particularly good shotmakers. And these aren't C players. They're good players - nice strokes, lots of knowledge, lots of talent. But the perception that they'll just show up to a place with bigger pockets and run balls with abandon is not the reality I've seen.

If you really pressed me, I might even tell you I think playing regularly on anything beyond a soft double shim actually hurts your game. With less options on cheating pockets and so much focus on actually just pocketing the balls, position play suffers greatly. You start playing for big zones; when playing 9 ball, it often leads to fairly ugly patterns and long position. Perhaps not on the pro level, but even at the A and Open level it just doesn't look as fluid as it should.

As for Amsterdam, the pocket faces are quite wide but they play tighter than they look. You definitely have lots of leeway when hitting a ball into the open pocket (they are big). But you don't have a lot of leeway if you hit a rail on the way in, because the rails are so bouncy. Once in a while a poorly-hit ball will fall, but for the most part, they're pretty unforgiving for what is obviously loose equipment.

- Steve
 
Steve Lipsky said:
It's an interesting topic. I've never been a fan of supertough pockets, especially for straight pool. The game is all about runs, not playing 20-and-safe. Who wants to watch that?
- Steve
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I was thinking and what I was about to post.
I love to watch and learn to play good patterns. I don't watch straight pool to see who the best shotmaker is.

They had a live feed of I think it was Mezz 14.1 where Johnny Archer won this summer. The table they were playing on was particularly tough. I don't think the best straight pool player won that event.

As others have said, on a tough table there are certain patterns you won't be able to play and you probably will have to duck sooner. That's not really how I want to spend my time.
 
Steve Lipsky said:
It's an interesting topic. I've never been a fan of supertough pockets, especially for straight pool. The game is all about runs, not playing 20-and-safe. Who wants to watch that?

This said, with the world's best, pockets which are too large can be unfair. You should have the expectation of maybe two open innings in every game you play. It should be a rare thing when you don't - not impossible, but rare. One of the things I loved about the Diamonds is that this expectation usually held true. I didn't care who I was playing, I was probably going to get a few innings.

I only have anecdotal evidence of what I am about to say, but here goes: I know a few people who have home tables and super tight pockets (4" or less) and when they show up to Amsterdam, I don't consider them to be particularly good shotmakers. And these aren't C players. They're good players - nice strokes, lots of knowledge, lots of talent. But the perception that they'll just show up to a place with bigger pockets and run balls with abandon is not the reality I've seen.

If you really pressed me, I might even tell you I think playing regularly on anything beyond a soft double shim actually hurts your game. With less options on cheating pockets and so much focus on actually just pocketing the balls, position play suffers greatly. You start playing for big zones; when playing 9 ball, it often leads to fairly ugly patterns and long position. Perhaps not on the pro level, but even at the A and Open level it just doesn't look as fluid as it should.

As for Amsterdam, the pocket faces are quite wide but they play tighter than they look. You definitely have lots of leeway when hitting a ball into the open pocket (they are big). But you don't have a lot of leeway if you hit a rail on the way in, because the rails are so bouncy. Once in a while a poorly-hit ball will fall, but for the most part, they're pretty unforgiving for what is obviously loose equipment.

- Steve
Click to expand...


Great post Steve, I've seen plenty of 5 inch pockets play super tough down the rails due to the conditions (worn cloth, dirty table, dirty balls, humidity, etc...)
 
Marop said:
Great post Steve, I've seen plenty of 5 inch pockets play super tough down the rails due to the conditions (worn cloth, dirty table, dirty balls, humidity, etc...)
Click to expand...

I am pretty new at 14.1 but I agree with Marop, Steve, John and Dennis here.
My table has 5" corners and Grand Canyons on the sides and I still miss a LOT of shots in 14.1 that I usually expect to make in 9 ball or 8 ball.
If my pockets were much tighter I probably would not be able to keep my composure long enough to practice 14.1 on it.

Also the rail facings on my table are pretty deep and the shelf is wide enough that you can rattle a ball and leave it on the edge of the pocket so deep that you can not hug the rail and still catch the edge of the ball.
That also means that when you play a "straight down the rail shot" to the corner pocket, you have to be careful to not bump the rail before the pocket, as it very well may rattle or miss the pocket completely!
Here is a link to some pictures showing my table pockets:
BigRigTom's 1974 Brunswick 8' Pro (46"x92" playing surface) Table
As hard as it is I still love this game!
 
Last edited:
My experience having played 14.1 for years on a Diamond boils down to just one notable difference: I just miss that odd shot from time to time that would have fallen on larger pockets. I don't have any problem playing close position, proper patterns, etc. Hitting balls along rails, where you have to put some speed to the shot to break out balls or move the CB, is where I find the biggest difference. You are flat out going to miss more of these shots, period. I had a nice 30 something going yesterday that was stopped by a firmly stuck ball behind the stack. The CB was against the side rail, the angle of the shot was somewhat shallow and I had to move the CB with some speed. I could easily have cinched it but the CB would not have gone where it needed to go.
But, as I stated before, it is all about expectations. On a Diamond average runs will be smaller.

Rick
 
SpiderWebComm said:
... Is it better to run fewer balls on tougher equipment or run a ton of balls on a peach-basket table? ...
Click to expand...
I think that for competition, you want smaller-than-average pockets. If you're trying to put on an exhibition of high runs, then maybe 5.5-inch pockets are useful, but if you want to find out who the best player is, you don't want to do it on tables where Goofy could run hundreds. My feeling is that the pockets in the Predator 14.1 Championships were too large. There were too many games with fewer than 10 innings. While the high runs may get the audience buzzing, I think it tends to make the outcome of the tournament more of a crap shoot.

In the big 14.1 tournaments I remember from last millennium, I don't think there were as many high runs as we saw in Parsippany in August. Maybe the players have gotten better, but I think part of it is the equipment.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I don't think there were as many high runs as we saw in Parsippany in August. Maybe the players have gotten better, but I think part of it is the equipment.
Click to expand...



1989 US Open 14.1 - Gold Crown 5 inch pockets
1992 US Open 14.1 - Gold Crown 5 inch pockets
2000 US Open 14.1 - Gold Crown 5 inch pockets

Same equipment as this years World Championships at Comet. I don't think the quality of play was better than the above tournaments but there were more high runs this year. I think the players of today are a little more offensive minded than the last generation of straight pool players.

Bill
 
Last edited:
It sounds like we might play about the same speed, so perhaps you might like my take.....


I played on a GCIII with slightly less than 4&1/2 pockets, but deep shelf, and tough throat angle. Needless to say, it was a very demanding and frustrating to play good straight pool on. I played straight pool on in regularly and would have runs occasionally in the 30's, but more often than not it would end prematurely on a shot that should have gone. I had a run of 83 on it one time, a couple in the 60's, two in the 70's. In competition, it was even worse. Noboby could get any rythm going, and it seemed like it was 10 and safe all day long. Sure the tight pockets helped my accuracy, but it took away from my confidence.

When I moved I had access to diamond pro tables and within a month or so cracked 100. I've had several runs over 100 since. In fact, on any given day, I am confident that I can put down at least a 50. The pockets on the diamond are not that much bigger, but the throat angle is much more forgiving. The slightly bigger pockets, coupled with the less severe throat angle, allow you to shoot some shots with the speed necessary to make effective break shots, as well as position play. You become less concerned about making a shot, and can focus on playing good patterns and position. On top of this, you get some rythm going.

In conclusion, I don't care to play straight pool on real tough equipement, nor do I like to play it on real easy bucket tables. For me, it's not an ego thing based on how many balls I can run, but how enjoyable it is to actually make rack transitions and play the game how it is meant to be played.
 
I'm in the camp with the people that don't care for the really tough pockets. When you're playing pool cheating a pocket is a valuable weapon if you get yourself out of line or if you need to do something that isn't natural. Really tight pockets takes that away. I don't agree that playing on those tough tables makes you better either. If anything it probably takes away a lot of the things you can do on more forgiving equipment.

Oddly enough I went to see the Lexington All-Stars back around 1998 or so, don't hold me to that year because I am guessing at it. Anyway, Rempe was practicing shooting some balls down the rail and they would jaw and spit out. He actually made them get the maintenance guys in there to fix it. I bet some of the pros would just cry if they had to play on some of the poorly set up equipment that we have to deal with.
MULLY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top