Why would the idea of 12-ball be a “joke”?
If 30 years ago you brought up the idea of playing pool on pockets less than 4”…I bet a greater percentage would think of that as a joke.
Small pockets ruining the game
- Thread starter smiling_Hans
- Start date
If 30 years ago you brought up the idea of playing pool on pockets less than 4”…I bet a greater percentage would think of that as a joke.
I don’t understand the bewilderment. It’s basically 10-ball with 2 extra balls. Yes, 12-ball isn’t currently a thing right now…other than the occasional proposition bet you hear once in a while of pros attempting to beat the 12-ball ghost. But sub 4” pockets weren’t a thing a few decades ago either.
Funny how some can't separate personal preference from what PROFESSIONALS should be competing on....lol
4.5" pockets for pros are absolute buckets. No one suggesting that every pool table on the planet be configured to professional standards, but having a higher set of standards for those professional players only makes sense.
4.5" pockets for pros are absolute buckets. No one suggesting that every pool table on the planet be configured to professional standards, but having a higher set of standards for those professional players only makes sense.
Georgiacue
Member
your right I am one of them. Here's the deal tho. ALot of halls are replacing buckets with 4.5" diamonds. In some cases all of their tables. Obviously their choice. But for the amateur's that's a tough table for many hence the point of my post..
I'm wondering why nobody is suggesting 9 footers are too big for beginners. All the hypothetical concepts - too this, that, and the other... for beginners lol.
Beginners need to learn the basic stops, cuts, and cue ball action. They can do that on any table - 12 footers included. What beginners can't; is jump in the water and start stringing racks - on any size table with any size pockets. If that's what's gonna save pool, the world has bigger issues to address.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Around here everything is 7' tables. I've seen a lot of beginners start on 4.5" pro cut. I think it's a good thing. If they care about pool, it isn't a hindrance. You actually have to focus and make a good shot. I think it's a perfect way to get a more accurate feeling game on a smaller table.
Sure, you may lose some casuals along the way. Does anyone actually think people should be running 5 packs after a year of play? To me that screams that the equipment is too easy. At a pool hall that caters to players, 4.5" is great IMO. If you're wanting to draw in more folks who just want a nice night out, then bigger pockets make sense. It's probably smart to have larger pockets to keep more people in your establishment.
Now on 9' I can understand going up to something like league cut (4.75"), but personally if I had a 9' I would never go above 4.5", maybe even go down to 4 1/4" as I mainly play 1P on a 9' table.
peachgabba
Registered
In Favor of Tighter Pockets for More Exciting Nine-ball Matches
As someone who watches a lot of billiards on YouTube, I'd like to argue for tighter pockets. With forgiving tables, a Nine-ball game after the break can be fast-forwarded through—what’s the thrill in watching a sure runout? The chance of a pro missing adds an element of excitement to watching and a layer of responsibility to the game.
If you think Nine-ball is just an easy game 'be definition', remember the world championships from two decades ago and the soft-break that made the game unbearably dull. 9-ball on the spot, break box - and here we are again, 9-ball is challenge. And I'm happy. Yes, playing with tighter pockets is more challenging. But personally, I want to see professionals push beyond their limits to become champions.
As someone who watches a lot of billiards on YouTube, I'd like to argue for tighter pockets. With forgiving tables, a Nine-ball game after the break can be fast-forwarded through—what’s the thrill in watching a sure runout? The chance of a pro missing adds an element of excitement to watching and a layer of responsibility to the game.
If you think Nine-ball is just an easy game 'be definition', remember the world championships from two decades ago and the soft-break that made the game unbearably dull. 9-ball on the spot, break box - and here we are again, 9-ball is challenge. And I'm happy. Yes, playing with tighter pockets is more challenging. But personally, I want to see professionals push beyond their limits to become champions.
Ok but then maybe your thoughts would be better suited for a thread entitled, "Room owners are ruining the game".
Tongue in cheek, but the choices of room owners isn't a problem with the professional game.
I agree (once I fixed your post to my liking).
Making the fairways on a golf course five yards wide instead of the more typical thirty and growing the rough high on every course would also make golf more challenging for the pros. It would also ruin the game of golf. The most important skill would become strength, as players would play the majority of their approach shots from deep rough. Golf would no longer be a fitting test of a complete skill set.
Make the hoop much smaller in basketball and the outside shooters become far less important. The game would evolve into a game in which most of the shots would be from ten feet and in. Bigger challenge? Maybe, but at the cost of making the game almost unwatchable.
It is the same with pool. As the stats from the UK Open showed, the break did not matter at all and the break and run rate was just 19%. Countless racks came down to safety play, as players, far too often, shunned the toughest shots and position paths in favor of either passive position play or safety play. In short, the tight pockets at the UK Open made the game more boring to watch in the eyes of most AZBers who posted on the subject.
Equipment specifications in any sport are not intended to make the game as difficult as possible, but instead to make sure that the sport a) offers a balanced and complete test of skills and b) that it is marketable. Crazy tight pockets in pool do not accomplish either of these.
I’m almost certain this was due to unfamiliarity. Players showed up prepared for 4” pockets and got 3 7/8”. I made a post in AtLarges stat thread that compared the earliest performance on the 4” pocket at the world pool masters a couple years ago compared with the following year and we saw a dip in performance followed by a noticeable recovery. I expect we would see that here as the top players adjust their practice equipment.
We won’t truly know what pool looks like on this equipment until the top players have had time to adjust their game. And frankly I’d be interested to see what it looks like with the old break format in place. I’d like to less luck in the break outcomes and have runs and table control limited by difficulty of the table.
Yes, well said. If 3 7/8" will be the norm in 2024, there will be some time needed to adjust. The WNT used 4" pockets in every Matchroom-produced event in 2023.
With equipment this difficult, as you suggest, there is really no need for the toughened break rules that were instituted in August of 2022.
i think there is a bigger difference between 3.875" and 4" than between 4" and 4.125", because the pocket cut angle becomes more pronounced. last year was fine! aside from lil ko and kaci that had freak performances, for the most part the matches weren't one sided, they were exciting.
i also think some people underestimate how good the top players have become the last decade. these fields need tight pockets. when mika and darren won those consecutive US opens, and shane started his run, the standard was nowhere near what it is now. they played on big pockets but BNR rate probably wasn't much higher than this latest UK open and likely a lot lower than most of last years MR majors
I think the fiddling with the rules and equipment of nine ball comes down to a single question: What is the optimum percentage for break-and-runs?
I think most would agree that 50% for the top sixteen would be too high. Too much of boring coin flips at that point. Similarly, 10% is probably too low and 5% certainly is. Right now, the knob Matchroom is turning to adjust this percentage is pocket size. I think it will take at least a year to see the result of any one change, and it seems to me that MR should slow down a little on the frequency of changes.
It's Matchroom. The Brits are obsessed with pocket size, even in snooker. Thank God they at least managed to standardize that. The problem is that Brits never have- or will respect US pool. It's just a sideshow to snooker for them. Shrinking the pockets is a lame attempt at bringing UK fans around, but it won't happen. They have 0 respect for the sport or the players. Just ask them. Matchroom is trying to build pool up, sure, but as a revenue stream, not as a sport. They'll make changes at the drop of a hat, without any regard to consequences, and not with the development of the sport at heart.
Instead it will ruin pool for sure. It will become boring AF. I don't see pool players helping matters either. I stopped competing at pool due to illness, but I got out at the right time, I think. I got to enjoy the last of the GC tables before they got phased out. Will probably have to buy one myself in order to enjoy pool if can make a "comback" to at least play the game again.
Instead it will ruin pool for sure. It will become boring AF. I don't see pool players helping matters either. I stopped competing at pool due to illness, but I got out at the right time, I think. I got to enjoy the last of the GC tables before they got phased out. Will probably have to buy one myself in order to enjoy pool if can make a "comback" to at least play the game again.
snookered_again
Well-known member
changing pocket sizes might affect players used to certain sizes, but small pockets never ruined snooker even though the 12 foot tables are huge . here is a comparison. you can take into account that the balls are smaller but it still requires a higher degree of accuracy. pocket size is also not everything, the shelf distance and the profile near the pockets is also a bit proprietary and that also has some effect on how many are potted vs ejected. At least whether the conditions are made more difficult or easier, it's still a fair game.
dynamicbilliard.ca
Snooker Table vs. Pool Table Profiles | Dynamic Billiard | Mississauga
American-style BCA regulation pool table pocket openings have wide straight-cut openings. This is the standard pool table style for tournament 8-ball & 9-ball.
dynamicbilliard.ca
I agree, I’ve spent a lot of time practicing on 3 7/8” and all of the sudden you will hit balls down the rail which look perfectly struck but then they bobble. If I were tossed on that table for the first time to compete I would have sworn that it was a gaff table. But a well placed camera and slow motion confirmed that I was now hitting the outside point of the pocket. Any balls near centre table aren’t that big of a deal, it’s just balls down the rail require you to change your aiming point. Also agree about the changing standard. When I started playing 20-30% BnRs was held up as pro and championship standard.
Yes and I would add run out after the first pot of the game stat as one to keep an eye on. For me it’s not just BnRs but also the general predictability of the games. At the highest end we’ve seen averages of 70% after the first pot which means winners are likely in the 75-80% range. We want some level of tension in the games but we also don’t want a comedy of errors.
One of the things that works for snooker is that tension during break building because on any scoring opportunity, it could be a 10-20 break or a century. You’ll never fully replicate that for 9 ball, but at least it’s worth trying to get close enough to keep the viewers phones in their pockets after a ball is potted.
Last edited:
sums it up great.