tight pockets bad for pool?

[Straightpool_99]

I don't think super tight pockets are good for pool.

I don't think they are fun to play on, I don't think they'll encourage beginners to play more, and frankly I don't think they add to the game in any way. All they do is subract. They remove shot options, they limit runs and they encourage safety play. That being said, you can get used to them, but as it is I think their main purpose is to trap players unfamiliar with them into bad gambling situations. Apperantly this is profitable enough to fuel a "tight pockets arms race" that will lead pool straight into oblivion.

 

[jalapus logan]

Why would it be any different than what Cardone said five years ago? Nothing's changed...

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

No, not much has changed, but I do want to know what should be promoted as industry standard with the requirement be that one table spec should be adhered to for ALL games, not just one or two. Pool is so splintered these days that having a different calibrated table for say, onepocket vs. 9 ball is not feasible.

It would be only academic for me, except that I keep envisioning myself as a room owner one day. Sadly, as I am not mad at my money, I have kept the 9-5 presently, despite my wife's urging to become more entrepreneurial...

 

[peppersauce]

..............

 

[skip100]

I don't think super tight pockets are good for pool.

I don't think they are fun to play on, I don't think they'll encourage beginners to play more, and frankly I don't think they add to the game in any way. All they do is subract. They remove shot options, they limit runs and they encourage safety play. That being said, you can get used to them, but as it is I think their main purpose is to trap players unfamiliar with them into bad gambling situations. Apperantly this is profitable enough to fuel a "tight pockets arms race" that will lead pool straight into oblivion.

Agreed. They have their place but it's certainly not in the average pool room or bar.

 

[Runner]

Come play the GC's on the tournament side at Hard Times Bellflower... you can't get two balls past the points, the faces are cut almost straight, and Andy cloth.. you can shoot one straight down the long rail perfect, and it'll stand up... very cautious play on those. Ernesto doesn't mess around...

I went to Steinway in NY a while back, and man... buckets! Same long rail shot, you could hit the second diamond and it'd still go! Must have been at least 4 3/4"-5"

 

[TATE]

For good players, tight but fair.

 

[pt109]

For good players, tight but fair.

I got a little snooker story about that, Chris.
In Toronto, we used to have a CNE snooker tournament....ran from the early 70s til '81.
Many of the top British players attended until the money became too big in the UK.

One year, John Virgo came over, he shot a few balls on one of the Brunswick Gold Crown
6x12s.....pockets were one eighth of an inch bigger than world regulation, with a more
generous fall....he stood up and said "Now I know why Cliff Thorburn is the best 6x6
player in the world...we're too busy making the ball to learn his shot selection."

Tight pockets create conservative players.

 

[jalapus logan]

For good players, tight but fair.

True that. But what specifically does that mean? Jaw width spec? Shelf depth? What single table best balances tough but fair for all games? Should a table play tighter for one pocket, but looser for 14.1?

Some people prize the ability to make a long straight in shot over other aspects of the game. Personally, I value cue ball patters, creative thinking, banking ability, and other aspects of the game over pure marksmanship. Having said that, I can split the wicket more times than not on aa diamond pro table with normal pro specs. That is not what I'm talking about. I'm still wondeing what single table will do the best job of promoting all pool games, not just 9 or 10 ball, which, frankly, is connect the dots syle pool and makes for a boring viewing experience.

 

[deanoc]

tight pockets take the fun out of the game

 

[ideologist]

Ernesto-tight? Not really.

4.5" pro cut? Absolutely.

5.75" Valley shelf? Absolutely not.

4.5" gives you the option to play parts of the pocket for position, without being ridiculously sloppy.

 

[pt109]

Ernesto-tight? Not really.

4.5" pro cut? Absolutely.

5.75" Valley shelf? Absolutely not.

4.5" gives you the option to play parts of the pocket for position, without being ridiculously sloppy.

I agree with 4.5 inch pockets....with a clean fall.
...deep shelves are anti-pool.

I have gambled on tables that had such a deep shelf that a ball hanging over the side but
froze on the jaw with the cue ball froze on the same rail...I could see less that one/eighth
of the ball.
I've had success on trap tables....but I have never played on one for pleasure.

..and if tables are not a pleasure to play on...the game has no foundation.

 

[WildWing]

I'll only tell you what Mike Sigel told me, which is that extra-tight pockets kill the game. A large part of the game, according to Mike, is cheating the pocket to get position, especially in straight pool. Anything less than about 4.5 inches, you're kidding yourself if you think it's helping. I tend to believe him on this one. Tight but fair is ok, ridiculously tight, not helping your game. There's more to the game than cinching balls.

 

[denzilla171]

Meh, you guys are wimps... my practice table has 3 inch pockets

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I agree with 4.5 inch pockets....with a clean fall.
...deep shelves are anti-pool.

I'm curious about your opinion on the Diamond shelf. To me it is tough, but "just right" (i.e."fair"). If you hit the shot right, the ball will fall, but if you jerk it you will be punished.

I like the 4.5 inch pocket openings, along with the Diamond facing angles. I read somewhere that the Diamond pockets were designed with the pro game in mind, so you wouldn't want them to be any easier than they already are if you are serious about the game. Personally, I find them difficult - but pleasurable - to play on.

 

[Poolmanis]

I'm curious about your opinion on the Diamond shelf. To me it is tough, but "just right" (i.e."fair"). If you hit the shot right, the ball will fall, but if you jerk it you will be punished.

I like the 4.5 inch pocket openings, along with the Diamond facing angles. I read somewhere that the Diamond pockets were designed with the pro game in mind, so you wouldn't want them to be any easier than they already are if you are serious about the game. Personally, I find them difficult - but pleasurable - to play on.

I agree 100% with Sloppy if rail cloth is decent Diamonds are just right..

 

[nineballsafety8]

So I haven't been on AZ in quite a while but since I was subscribed to this, my phones has been goin nuts lol.

Anyway, when I moved in Feb, I rebuilt my table as I wasnt thrilled with how it played. Below you can see the end result.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jalapus logan]

I'll only tell you what Mike Sigel told me, which is that extra-tight pockets kill the game. A large part of the game, according to Mike, is cheating the pocket to get position, especially in straight pool. Anything less than about 4.5 inches, you're kidding yourself if you think it's helping. I tend to believe him on this one. Tight but fair is ok, ridiculously tight, not helping your game. There's more to the game than cinching balls.

This is what I am suspecting. I like that he mentioned tight pockets as it pertains to straight pool.

I am a diehard pool nut, to be sure. But even I don't tune in to watch many pro events because most tend to be 9 or 10 ball and I lose interest, as it all tends to feel the same. However, I do tune in to streams like the DCC because I get to see different games and skill sets on offer.

So, let me reframe my question:

If you were to promote and host a Derby City Classic style event, to include equally weighted 9 ball (or 10 ball), short rack banks, onepocket, and I'll take the liberty to throw in 14.1, then what pocket specifications and other playing conditions would be best to promote the collection of games (edited to note that you can pick 1 and only 1 table)?

I'll propose that the Diamond Pro table is the best we've got on offer at present, but I will concede that I feel that even this table is perhaps too tight for 14.1. I'm torn about it for banks.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

With modern cloth and modern lighting on a table that's cared for, 4 inch pockets should be standard. Even for 14.1.

Shoot imo 14.1 is the best all around billiards game, and, imo, it is made all the better with 4 inch pockets.

I agree it can get too tight, but 4 inches is not too tight. I would never take Segel's advice on anything relating to pocket size: we've all seen the man break his cue in public because he missed a shot.

I am entirely unimpressed with high runs and "packages" that are made on tables that are engineered so that you can slop a ball in for better shape.

But hey, I enjoy a challenge.

 

[jalapus logan]

With modern cloth and modern lighting on a table that's cared for, 4 inch pockets should be standard. Even for 14.1.

Shoot imo 14.1 is the best all around billiards game, and, imo, it is made all the better with 4 inch pockets.

I agree it can get too tight, but 4 inches is not too tight. I would never take Segel's advice on anything relating to pocket size: we've all seen the man break his cue in public because he missed a shot.

I am entirely unimpressed with high runs and "packages" that are made on tables that are engineered so that you can slop a ball in for better shape.

But hey, I enjoy a challenge.

Well, I'm not particularly a fan of Sigel, but I will acknowledge that he played some of the best pool of all time in both 9 ball and 14.1, so I would give merit to his opinion, but not everyone needs to.

AZ member Atlarge has compiled an impressive amount of data for various tournament play and, if I recall, the B & R % in 9 ball tends to gravitate towards the low 20% range and not much better or worse for 10 ball. This is across varying tables, though I would guess that much of this play occurred in Diamond Pro tables. To me, the data does not suggest that the typical pro tourney table (usually Diamond???) is too easy.

In fact, I would guess that pro's running, say a four pack, is not at all common and any of them running a six pack in a tourney setting is rare indeed. When a sixer does occur, the forums are all abuzz, as something truly extraordinary has occured. Therefore, I would personally decline to make playing conditions tougher.

4" pockets would be horrible for banks, imo. Bank pool is an under appreciated discipline, as is 14.1 and onepocket. I guess that most pool players are indoctrinated in the dogma that 9 ball and/or 10 ball is what pool is. I just don't understand why folks don't play or promote the other games, which frankly can be more fun to play and certainly to watch.

All of this is certainly my opinion only. For what it's worth, I enjoy the challenge of any pool game on any table, but certain conditions do detract from the beauty, form and function of the games.

Side note, is it beer:30 yet?

 

[beerpressure]

Tad bit off topic but what are those white spots? I see them on some tables