Modern manufacturing should eliminate the hassles. Buy the system and the cushion packs, all set.
Small pockets ruining the game
- Thread starter smiling_Hans
- Start date
We don't have to look further than russian pyramid tables to see that people can play on anything! One of the adaptations is that any ball can be used as the cue ball and any ball used as the object ball. I don't know what size the balls are but I assume we can get a set of pool balls close enough to size to play on the russian table. The question becomes does anyone want to? Scroll down to see a ball in the jaws of the corner pocket.
How to play ‘Russian Pyramid’, the ultimate challenge for billiard players
With different table and ball-sizes and a different set of rules, this variation becomes the most challenging of all billiard games out there.
I think the advanced amateur, maybe a high C or low B player, should be able to run five balls several times a night, an occasional break and run. These are the people that keep pool halls in business. I stayed single until I was twenty-five or so. I played a lot of pool with friends. I noticed that they favored the places with softer tables. Didn't change win rates, I was the only one that lived, ate, and breathed pool, but they made more balls and felt they had a better chance.
Hu
They have the excellence gene. They must be protected and cultivated...
I'm almost with you here, Hu, but I think the backbone of the poolroom scene consists of even weaker players than you suggest. I think the Fargo 500 and under players are the ones that make the pool hall click and that the trend toward making tables tighter has and will continue to send more than a few of them back to the bars and the seven foot tables.
The really smart pool room owners understand that looser pockets keep the weaker players with no competitive aspirations engaged.
Perhaps one or two tables in a poolroom should be tight and, as JTOMPILOT suggests, their use should be restricted to accomplished players, perhaps Fargo 600 or better.
I decided not to change my post but I think your range is more accurate. The old letter ranges don't really work well but I don't know fargo well enough to use it.
Mid C to upper C might be more accurate. Maybe all of C.
jtompilot and you both have points. One old pool hall I went to had a couple of covered tables. You had to prove you belonged on them before you were allowed to get on them.
Always annoying to find bangers on the one or few tables you want to play on. A simple reserved sign can take care of that problem though.
One of the things I looked forward to was playing some snooker when I was in Dallas. Went to the hall, they had one snooker table and it was next to the carom table. Two guys were playing carom. I considered how annoying it would be for somebody to set up next to me with an empty pool hall and grabbed a rack of pool balls!(grin)
Hu
I think once you take into account drink orders, at least in the US, you're looking at the 400 and under club driving sales.
Attempting to put some math behind this. The APA is the largest league, and with the 23 rule the "average" player they can put up is an SL4.6 (23 divided by 5), which is basically a Fargo 400-type player.
Extending that thought, the average APA player is probably a hair better than the average recreational/hobby player ( the group of friends who goes to the pool hall once a month or plays at the local dive bar every Friday, but has never once done a drill of any sort).
Throw in "date night" players, and people who show up "because they can't remember the last time they just went out and shot pool" and that average goes way down.
On top of that, the more you move down the hierarchy, the more alcohol is the focus ($$$) instead of pool.
I tend not to like American impatience, it is a problem I have with my own countrymen. It isn’t a good way to approach life. I am all for slower pool with high precision.
The slow players are still on practice and the fast players are just going off half cocked. They need to take a lesson from those that know performance.
NineballTom
Member
4.5 inch pockets aren't buckets even for the pros. 4.5 allows for minor cheating of the pocket while still holding the shooter to a high standard of aim. And just because they are pros doesn't mean they should have to play on ultra tough tables. We don't ask NBA players to shoot through an ultra small hoop or ask NFL kickers to kick a field goal through a tighter upright.... we ask of them to look like world class players on standard equipment, and that's what we should be asking of pro pool players.
If you want to get a super tight pocket table at home, I don't have a problem with that at all. But the big priority for professional pool should be making it more fun and marketable to a larger audience, and I don't see how making the pockets tighter would appeal to a broader audience at all.
I'm yet to study the whole thread, and that gonna take me quite a while. But long story short, my 0.02 cents, is that yes, small pockets do ruin the proper game of pool. I teach both games here, pool and pyramid, and occasionally used to approach the pyramid table with pool balls, to test my stroke. Single shots are feasible, playing a rack - forget it.
But now this is not too much relevant to what I am driving at. Pool pockets are supposed to have certain size that does not restrict a player from using left or right side of it, striving to get a desired cut angle, as simple as that!
I'm not to first to come up with this idea, but if I were MR I would have left Diamond pockets of 4.25" and instead of making them less and less than 4, I would have pre-treated the cloth! So that it performs as worn cloth from day one. Unfortunately mainstream pool is in the hands of a team (I sincerely hope it is a team rather than a sole person) which does not know many intricacies into the game. And at the same time must be not wise enought to seek proper advice (even that the players who could give it originate from the same country). Duh...
But now this is not too much relevant to what I am driving at. Pool pockets are supposed to have certain size that does not restrict a player from using left or right side of it, striving to get a desired cut angle, as simple as that!
I'm not to first to come up with this idea, but if I were MR I would have left Diamond pockets of 4.25" and instead of making them less and less than 4, I would have pre-treated the cloth! So that it performs as worn cloth from day one. Unfortunately mainstream pool is in the hands of a team (I sincerely hope it is a team rather than a sole person) which does not know many intricacies into the game. And at the same time must be not wise enought to seek proper advice (even that the players who could give it originate from the same country). Duh...
That's just an opinion. There is no "supposed to" about pool. It's a work in progress.
They are most definitively buckets, especially at what should be a professional level. I'm no where near a professional level, and if I find a 4.5" large, then they're cavernous for a pro. Maybe we're on different sides of the fence in regards to what a "pro" is...? IMHO, there are currently 128 pros. Yes that's conveniently the same number of WNT contracted players. There are also seas of high 700 players that can compete against the weaker group of those 128 players. A pool room donating a guy a shirt with their name on it and tossing them $50 to help with gas, isn't a pro anymore.
I was cautioned when I rebuilt my rails not to reduce them to a 4.25". That once the cloth has worn in I'd find it "impossible" and "unenjoyable" to play on. However, a ~year later, and I couldn't be happier. Everyone is different and I don't expect all to share my opinion of 4.25" pockets. What I do know, is my own ability and how it stacks up against world class.
Does my home table play tough..? Ya, probably for those who don't normally play, or don't put any effort into their games.
Again, we're spiraling down a subjective rabbit hole. What's "ultra tough"...? I found the USopen 4" diamonds insanely tough, but I'm not even a 700 player so what does my opinion matter. I don't find 4.25" tough. They keep you honest but it doesn't prevent me from doing whatever I feel like attempting.
Here's the thing with the other sports that are being compared to pool. They're actually sports, not a game. You're right, the NBA net is at 10ft and the same size as those amateurs have decided to install at their parks. I guess the difference is...., an actual NBA player is trying to prevent them from scoring...lol. NFL kickers are under the threat of having their heads taken off by a 300lbs-er.
The problem for some is that "professional pool" globally, isn't what is going on in the USA. The game is bigger than the NA, and fortunately for the rest of the world wasn't yet defined by a NA standard, (much like baseball or basketball). The actual professional game needs to be harder than it was when "strong players" were determined by how many days they could play without sleep, while drinking/smoking endlessly and dealing with crappy equipment.
So we're back to the probably the closest comparable which is golf. Another 'game' that has a higher set of standards for professionals. Longer/thinner fairways, taller rough, more and appropriately placed hazards, and of course greens that are "ultra-fast" and have pin placements for not the weak at heart.
Really in the end. Some amateurs want the professional game to be like the amateur version. Maybe to make them feel good about their limited skill...? When it should be the amateur version bending a knee to the professional one. The guise for this argument is "what's good for the game". Well golf does just fine with having different standards. Not sure why crappy pool players (general statement) have this undying need to pull down the pro game for sake of their ego.
Sorry I can't agree here. The BIG priority for professional pool is to produce a product that people will watch. The same olde, same olde, break/run, break/run, break/run.... etc, doesn't work. That's been going on for decades. What's needed is the drama that comes from mistakes on a grand stage. MR has produced the 'grand stage' with their events and is now humanizing the game by forcing mistakes the only way they can, by increasing the difficulty of equipment.
It's not professional pool's problem to make some random pool room in Arkansas have more enjoyable tables.
Last edited:
In my humble opinion. I personally would like to see a professional tour with something larger than 4 but no more than 4.25". ...and use 4" as the higher standard for majors. Like the World's or USopen.
Clearly define "majors" and make them a harder test of skill. Golf does this, tennis does this.
I think there's a place for "ultra-tough" equipment. It's just not every place.
George the Greek
Well-known member
I got a new to me 9ft delivered/installed yesterday and I believe the pockets are 4.5". All of our friends are considered bangers but the funny part about it is they try and make balls and don't just smash them around. Some of them can run 3-4 balls in a row before running out of position or they miss. I actually enjoy watching them have fun
Nice, now imagine how much fun they'd have standing there for an hour watching SVB run rack after rack after rack after rack after.....
I wouldn't suggest smaller pockets for a recreational table. Depending on the cut, even 4.5 could be challenging for the casual.
NineballTom
Member
Back in the 90s an early 2000s, the average pocket wasn't near as tight as today and yet people enjoyed it. Even when a sloppy shot, or even an outright luck shot went in, people cheered, laughed and clapped. Nowadays they would get on the internet and complain about the pockets being buckets.
As far as what I consider to be professional pool players, I don't have a specific number on that. Guys like Corey Deuel and John Schmidt probably aren't anywhere close to the top of the list anymore, but I would still consider them to be at the professional level.
In my opinion 2 things can really kill the presentation of pool to an audience
1. A lot of rules they don't recognize
2. Changing the dynamic of the game so much that people don't relate to it (I think tightening the pockets up is a step in that direction)
I agree with what John Schmidt said years ago about the tight pocket phenomenon, pros are supposed to look like pros. Tightening the pockets up doesn't help them, or really anyone in that regard.
yes, just fractions makes a big difference.. which is what niels said too
Those fractions are the remnants of the slop zone. And besides, the inches haven't been correlated with other factors in play - atmosphere, climate, dust etc...
It's the players who need to get crackin.