And what percentage of the market do you represent? Just wondering.
Statement from The Legends of Pocket Billiards
- Thread starter lfigueroa
- Start date
Oh, I’m far from beating the drum. I think this is the second time I’ve mentioned my opinion that 4.25” should be standard for all competitive events. And I’m only talking about professional events. Bars and the like can do whatever they please to let customers enjoy playing pool.
I’m just thinking on the run here. It seems to me that a lot of the enjoyment of spectating competitive events comes form the knowledge that you, the viewer, can not do what the professionals do. Snooker for example (sorry, that’s just where I have most experience). Snooker fans, even those that make century breaks, know how much tougher the professional tables are than their club tables. They appreciate what the professionals are able to do on those tables and therefore enjoy watching them do it.
I think this logic applies to any sport. If everyone could run sub-10 second 100 meters, I doubt there’d be as much interest in watching the likes of Bolt do his thing. If everyone had minus handicaps in golf, I suspect golf viewership would be way down (sorry if I said something wrong there, I don’t know much about golf). And even though as pool players we know that it’s much harder than it looks, most ball bangers have potted 7 or 8 balls in a row. When they see pros do it on tables not much different from their local bar or club, I’m pretty sure a lot of them wonder what’s so special about professional pool.
Before I switched from snooker to pool, I used to quite literally be in tears watching professional 9 ball; commentators being amazed at someone playing short side position or making an 8 foot pot, balls bouncing half way up the rail and still dropping in the pockets, and so on. I really had zero interest in watching it because I was pretty sure I’d be able to play those same shots on my first attempt.
Of course, I now know that pool is not as simple as that. However, in the very first big pool tournament I played in, 2 months after starting to play pool, and after a year of not playing anything, in the final, I beat a Korean pro that played for Korea in the World Cup of Pool. Yes, Korea is not a powerhouse in men’s pool. It didn’t do much to make me want to watch pros.
Well, if I am playing Shaw 200 to 50 on this table used for his 714 run, you are correct, my goal is to never let him at the table where he can make a shot and have any opportunity to open a rack- bc if he does I will most probably lose, given his run ability on this table.
However, I am also confident that I can run 50 on this table; maybe as often as he will run 200, but probably not so. Therefore if I do get to the table with an open shot I would still play risk/reward pool to the max when contemplating shot over a safe. The looser pockets might give me more confidence to go for the shot and the 50 ball run rather than playing a poor safe; but for him, I don't think he cares if the pockets are 4 1/2 or 5 inches - he would make the same decisions in either case - his confidence level in his shotmaking is that much higher.
When we talk pro players against lesser ranked amateurs, The pro will have confidence whether the table plays tight or loose compared to the amateur who, I think, will have greater confidence in themselves on a looser table.
Last edited:
You have a difficult way of pushing your point sometimes (or let's say often) and you make funny mistakes (like writing John instead of Jayson above) but I think I get your point overall (this time) and I think you are right (this time).
If other players want to break Jayson's record they should have a fair chance meaning their table should be of exact same difficulty. Regulations are needed to know, how to set up a table so the new record can be compared with the actual one.
If John Schmidt wants to break the record, he doesn't need to get invited by The Legends of Pocket Billiards. All he needs is a table and a camcorder (better two from different angles). But he needs to know the specifications of the table. Otherwise, here I agree with you, you can always find a table mechanic to make the pockets bigger and easier.
If Legends make their pockets 5 1/4 '' (looks this way on some photos) while John's table had only 5'', who is to say next record won't be made on 5 1/2'' pockets and the one after on 6'' pockets? It probably will backfire on some pocketsize with too many scratches on the break to make bigger runs more difficult again, but I don't want to find out, what this pocket size would be.
So I totally agree with having this contest on an easy GC III with 5'' pockets. This is how Straight Pool was played for over 20 years (US Open Straight Pool 1989, 1992, 2000 (on GC IV), Maine Event 1995), Mosconi had his run on an easy table and John ran his 626 on the easiest table he could find (5'' pockets, seemingly comparable to the GC III from Legends).
But seemingly and in the same ballpark is not the same as "it was exactly the same difficulty". And if 5 1/4'' is seemingly the same as 5'' and 5 1/2'' is ok, if 5 1/4'' was, then .... you get the picture.
So Lou can keep repeating "You don't like the way we make it, make your own event" but for official World Records some official agreement on table specifications is needed. It wasn't available before. When John went for the record, he was the first in over 50 years and no one cared how he did it and from Mosconi we don't have the specifications.
But if there is more interest now and if people want to challenge the 714, we need to know the equipment without fearing some Frankenstein tables with 7'' pockets.
The caliper photo shows them at just a hair under 5".
Lou Figueroa
There was *alway* going to be controversy no matter what.
Tis the way of the world nowadays.
Lou Figueroa
as long as the pocket is larger than the ball
the pro plans he will pocket the ball
jmho
icbw
kanzzo
hobby player
i know
and this one is from the stream after the record run where Jayson showed in the camera how big the pockets are (calling them buckets).
So I hope you understand the controversy.
With all due respect. Digital calipers have a 'zero' button. Much like the digital protractors that people like to hang their hats on.
I really don't care at all about the pocket specs. Just saying that a digital clamp quite literally validates nothing in a still frame. I could go downstairs and snap an equalivent pic of the 1" pockets I play on all day.
I used my calipers to measure my coffee cup, with witnesses;
1st reading - 2.77, 2nd reading - 2.39, 3rd reading - 1.02. Same cup
Then I measured the mouth with Stanley 25' tape and it read 2 3/4"
Regardless of the readings, showing on the calipers, the cue ball went right by the calipers into the cup .
Same amount of empty space in with the ball regardless of what the calipers read.
The stanley tape measure was right on for numerous measures.
1st reading - 2.77, 2nd reading - 2.39, 3rd reading - 1.02. Same cup
Then I measured the mouth with Stanley 25' tape and it read 2 3/4"
Regardless of the readings, showing on the calipers, the cue ball went right by the calipers into the cup .
Same amount of empty space in with the ball regardless of what the calipers read.
The stanley tape measure was right on for numerous measures.
The calipers are not measuring the point to point opening, its measuring inside the jaws of the pocket.
Controversy only exists because of deflecting the facts, telling everyone you don't really see what you think you see, they're not as big as you think they are, and we're not going to do anything to prove, or disprove our claims, because the viewers don't need to know the truth.
No controversy with the balls placed half way in the jaws of the pocket, splitting the points of the opening, frozen to both sides of the pocket opening, then you can clearly see the gap between the balls and add that to the 4 1/2" of the balls. In this picture you can clearly see because of the gap between the balls this pocket is slightly bigger than 4 1/2" procut. And those miter angles are at 141 degrees,
you can clearly see the throat being smaller than the mouth of the pocket.
And I understand you're not the person holding the calipers, and you're just repeating what you, yourself have been told, so the deception is not on you.
You just made me question all the dimensions I have been so sure of all my life. Now what am I going to tell my Tinder matches?
This place is a riot
May be distortion, but by the apparent mouth and throat measurements (4 5/8" and 3 3/4") the angle per side is about 144° (135° + 9°).
pj
chgo
I guarantee you they're 141 degrees, I know for a fact they are.
all these arguments whether right or wrong, needless or not, go away if we have a standard size pocket, shelf, and angle for all pro events.
then homeowners can make their own pockets whatever size they want and same with pool rooms but we will all know what is regulation.
we have a regulation size and weight for the balls and that doesnt change based on what record or game of pool we play.
then homeowners can make their own pockets whatever size they want and same with pool rooms but we will all know what is regulation.
we have a regulation size and weight for the balls and that doesnt change based on what record or game of pool we play.
Yes, those 2 balls are sitting a full half a ball (1-1/8”) inside the mouth, and there’s still roughly a 1/4” between the pocket facings and the balls, on both sides. The pocket is 5” wide where they are sitting and roughly another 1/4” wider than that if you move the balls out to the true mouth, which makes a 5-1/4” pocket. Sorry, but this photo is quite revealing and NOT at all deceiving.
Last edited: