Tight Pockets=tight Money

Taken from the WPA website on the page where Gremlin probably got the table specifications from (this part was left out):

(Effective November, 2001)

1. Purpose
The purpose of these specifications shall be to set standards for equipment used at all WPA World Championships, WPA World Tour events and other WPA sanctioned and/or recognized events. These specifications do not necessarily apply to tables manufactured for commercial home use. At its sole discretion, the World Pool-Billiard Association can sanction tournaments on tables not in compliance with these specifications.



So the U.S. promoters should adhere to the specifications put forth in the year 2001 by a single organization that, as far as I know, doesn't sanction any events in the U.S.? Not to mention, the WPA even makes it known that they may sanction tournaments on tables that aren't in compliance with those specifications! :eek: I'm sure you'll call me all sort of names for pointing this out, as you usually do when I post anything in response to your posts, but go ahead. I can take it. :D
 
Jimmy M. said:
So the U.S. promoters should adhere to the specifications put forth in the year 2001 by a single organization that, as far as I know, doesn't sanction any events in the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Jimmy, notwithstanding changes in the mission and organization of the BCA in mid-2004, remember that the Billiard Congress of America is a member of the WPA organization. Hence, BCA sanctions events as a member of WPA.
 
sjm said:
Jimmy, notwithstanding changes in the mission and organization of the BCA in mid-2004, remember that the Billiard Congress of America is a member of the WPA organization. Hence, BCA sanctions events as a member of WPA.
Click to expand...

Regardless, it still strikes me as funny that someone would want everyone else to adhere to a relatively new standard that even the sanctioning body that wrote the standard reserves the right to ignore if they so choose. Why would the UPA, for example, strictly enforce it if the WPA doesn't strictly enforce it? If that's the case, okay, the UPA has been following the WPA's standard all along. They have just chose to still sanction those events that are played on equipment that doesn't adhere to the WPA's written standards ... just like the WPA (or the BCA) may do!

Eh, what does it matter? The two "loose-pocket-supporters" in this thread, and I'm guilty as well, have just thrown out lame examples to support their arguments. With that said, however, I do feel my examples were less lame than theirs. ;)
 
Last edited:
Buckets used to be considered over five inches wide at the narrowest part of the pocket. But average pockets were just over 4.5" at the back of the pockets. Now about 4.25" at the narrowest part is what most are shimming them to. Never did get any answers to whether anyone likes my suggestions for changing the football field length to 150 yard, 3 downs, and 15 yards to first down. From the logic many are using here 100 yard is good for kids and beginners but real players should not be able to score 40 points in one game. Make it tougher to where the scores would be down lower so the better team would win. Raise the goal in basketball to 12 feet. We all know the basket ball players are taller now than when the 10 foot basket was established. Move the foul line back to the three point line. Pros should get have to play on as easy of court as highschool kids do, should they? In baseball narrow up home plate and make the pitcher throw from closer to 2nd base. Don't you think the above changes to our three major sports would generate more fairness, and create larger viewing audiences? With all the steriods the main three are surely too easy for the pros, so let's make it harder. It would be more exciting to see someone slam dunk that 12 foot goal. Scores of 40 to 55 will be just as exciting also given enough time. And if the fans don't like it, this will save the leagues money because they won't need such large facilities to hold their events in.
 
Gremlin said:
cueman,

Are you drunk? I have never read you type such dribble! This has turned out to be a two page thread which means nothing. WPA rule 9 is just fine with me. Either you have rules or you don't. There is no way to bring young talent along without a set of uniform rules.

You can have all the so called skills but if you don't have some natural talent, you don't play in the top 20 in the world even in a brain dead game like 9-Ball.

Happy New Year,

"Gremlin"
Click to expand...
Do you even play pool Gremlin? Whats your story? Your posts seem so generic to me, do you just copy what others say or what you read about? I'm just curious, don't take it the wrong way, unless you must. Or, just ignore the questions, I think I know the answers anyway. Peace.
 
cueman said:
Never did get any answers to whether anyone likes my suggestions for changing the football field length to 150 yard, 3 downs, and 15 yards to first down. From the logic many are using here 100 yard is good for kids and beginners but real players should not be able to score 40 points in one game.
Click to expand...

Your suggestions on football would only be a good comparison if the field was, at one time, 150 yards, and then shortened to 100 yards to appeal to the weekend warrior players, then just stuck, and now the pro's play on 100 yard fields. That isn't the case, so your comparison isn't really the same as what has happened with pool tables. The pockets weren't always the size that you prefer them. You just happened to start playing at a time (as did I, admittedly) after the tables had been dummied up for the recreational player. Anyway, you're making such a big deal out of this and it isn't warranted. MOST of the tournaments out there are played on looser equipment. By looser, I mean on pockets that are around 4.5" or bigger. The more you rant it is just obvious that you're pissed that you got beat by a guy on a tight table after beating everyone else in the tournament on looser tables. Hey, I might be pissed too. I hate losing as much as anyone, but say it like it is. Your ranting is fueled by the fact that you lost in a tournament that you felt like you should have won! You seem to feel like you got robbed because they switched tables on you and now tight pockets are what is wrong with pool! All this time I thought there were real reasons that there is "tight money" in pool, when all along it was the tight pockets (which are still the minority in tournament play, regardless of what you'd like us all to believe)! C'mon, man. Just say it like it is. You got beat. It sucks. I know because I've lost a billion matches myself, and it sucks every time. A few tournaments being played on tight equipment isn't what is keeping money out of pool. By the way, aside from California, where the trend has been to tighten the pockets, the tables at the Sands in Reno are fairly tight by comparison to a lot of other places I've gone to play. Those pockets measure 4 9/16" at the opening. I'm really not sure what your complaint is about if it isn't your individual experience of losing in a tournament on a tight table and, as far as I know, that tournament wasn't televised, so I'm guessing pool didn't lose any potential sponsors because of it.
 
Jimmy M. said:
Your suggestions on football would only be a good comparison if the field was, at one time, 150 yards, and then shortened to 100 yards to appeal to the weekend warrior players, then just stuck, and now the pro's play on 100 yard fields. That isn't the case, so your comparison isn't really the same as what has happened with pool tables. The pockets weren't always the size that you prefer them. You just happened to start playing at a time (as did I, admittedly) after the tables had been dummied up for the recreational player. Anyway, you're making such a big deal out of this and it isn't warranted. MOST of the tournaments out there are played on looser equipment. By looser, I mean on pockets that are around 4.5" or bigger. The more you rant it is just obvious that you're pissed that you got beat by a guy on a tight table after beating everyone else in the tournament on looser tables. Hey, I might be pissed too. I hate losing as much as anyone, but say it like it is. Your ranting is fueled by the fact that you lost in a tournament that you felt like you should have won! You seem to feel like you got robbed because they switched tables on you and now tight pockets are what is wrong with pool! All this time I thought there were real reasons that there is "tight money" in pool, when all along it was the tight pockets (which are still the minority in tournament play, regardless of what you'd like us all to believe)! C'mon, man. Just say it like it is. You got beat. It sucks. I know because I've lost a billion matches myself, and it sucks every time. A few tournaments being played on tight equipment isn't what is keeping money out of pool. By the way, aside from California, where the trend has been to tighten the pockets, the tables at the Sands in Reno are fairly tight by comparison to a lot of other places I've gone to play. Those pockets measure 4 9/16" at the opening. I'm really not sure what your complaint is about if it isn't your individual experience of losing in a tournament on a tight table and, as far as I know, that tournament wasn't televised, so I'm guessing pool didn't lose any potential sponsors because of it.
Click to expand...


tap, tap, tap
 
Jimmy M. said:
Your suggestions on football would only be a good comparison if the field was, at one time, 150 yards, and then shortened to 100 yards to appeal to the weekend warrior players, then just stuck, and now the pro's play on 100 yard fields. That isn't the case, so your comparison isn't really the same as what has happened with pool tables. The pockets weren't always the size that you prefer them. You just happened to start playing at a time (as did I, admittedly) after the tables had been dummied up for the recreational player. Anyway, you're making such a big deal out of this and it isn't warranted. MOST of the tournaments out there are played on looser equipment. By looser, I mean on pockets that are around 4.5" or bigger. The more you rant it is just obvious that you're pissed that you got beat by a guy on a tight table after beating everyone else in the tournament on looser tables. Hey, I might be pissed too. I hate losing as much as anyone, but say it like it is. Your ranting is fueled by the fact that you lost in a tournament that you felt like you should have won! You seem to feel like you got robbed because they switched tables on you and now tight pockets are what is wrong with pool! All this time I thought there were real reasons that there is "tight money" in pool, when all along it was the tight pockets (which are still the minority in tournament play, regardless of what you'd like us all to believe)! C'mon, man. Just say it like it is. You got beat. It sucks. I know because I've lost a billion matches myself, and it sucks every time. A few tournaments being played on tight equipment isn't what is keeping money out of pool. By the way, aside from California, where the trend has been to tighten the pockets, the tables at the Sands in Reno are fairly tight by comparison to a lot of other places I've gone to play. Those pockets measure 4 9/16" at the opening. I'm really not sure what your complaint is about if it isn't your individual experience of losing in a tournament on a tight table and, as far as I know, that tournament wasn't televised, so I'm guessing pool didn't lose any potential sponsors because of it.
Click to expand...
My football thing does apply because it was regular pockets for decades (100 yards) and then people started tightening them (150 yards). That is like lengthening the football field. My beef with tightening pockets goes way farther back than the one tournament. I play tournaments almost every week on shimmed tables. Don't like em, but I keep playing. The double shimmed table at the one tournament was an extreme circumstance and that is not fair to anyone. But the other tournaments I play are fair in that most all the tables are shimmed tight, but not double shimmed. So we all play on the same type of table all the way through the tournament. But I still feel pool would be better off if they left the pockets alone. How long have you been playing seriously? It does not sound like you can remember what you call buckets as being the normal pockets. Your picture with the cash says you play good, so I mean no disrespect. By the way I have won many tournaments on tight tables. I love pool and will probably keep playing even if they triple shim the tables. But then I would feel pool was ruined, because it would turn into a soft shooting multiple safeties game. Boring to watch and boring to play for me.
 
Last edited:
Gremlin said:
cueman,

Are you drunk? I have never read you type such dribble! This has turned out to be a two page thread which means nothing. WPA rule 9 is just fine with me. Either you have rules or you don't. There is no way to bring young talent along without a set of uniform rules.

You can have all the so called skills but if you don't have some natural talent, you don't play in the top 20 in the world even in a brain dead game like 9-Ball.

Happy New Year,

"Gremlin"
Click to expand...
I don't drink or do drugs. But I have played pool for 35 years and know how things were and and how things are. Tighter pockets were not the norm for my first 32 years of playing. Anyone who says different, makes me suspect they are new to pool. I make my living in the pool industry and have for many years and do not want to see pool decline. Is that desire so bad?
 
whitewolf said:
Gremlin, have you ever heard of the phrase "LUCK IS FOR LOSERS"? A famous saying in the world of Backgammon, and this applies to 9 ball also. How about "THERE IS A SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE"?

Like it or not Gremlin, 9 ball is liked by a lot of people who indeed realize that luck is part of the game. 9 ball is exciting. You might as well go to the park and watch some chess matches.......then you might be able to really get off.
Click to expand...
Great post. Nine ball is exciting and I don't want the trend toward tighter and tighter pockets turn it into something boring to watch.
 
cueman said:
How long have you been playing seriously? It does not sound like you can remember what you call buckets as being the normal pockets.
Click to expand...

I've been playing for almost 21 years. However, I don't remember there ever being any sort of standard pocket size. I've played in pool rooms that had tighter pockets, and I've played in pool rooms that had pockets so big that I thought I might fall into one of them if I wasn't careful (are you guys from Six Shooters reading this? ;)). I started playing at Hard Times in 1988, and the pockets on their tournament tables were tighter than what I was used to playing on in the pool room that I went to before that. I usually stay on the West coast because, as a working stiff, it is hard for me to take off for long periods of time (so I usually play in weekend tournaments that are easy for me to get to), but I have seen that quite a few places in California have pretty tight tables now. However, outside of that, I don't see overly tight pockets anywhere. In fact, if they have to be labeled one way or the other, most of the time I see pockets that are on the looser side.

You know, there might be someone reading your posts who's been playing longer than you and who wonders why you can't remember playing with tight pockets and clay balls. If you've been playing for 30+ years, and you've been in the billiard industry for so long, you must know, or at least have heard, that those things were the norm before what we have now.
 
Last edited:
I have worked on pool tables that were made from the late 1800's to now and have not seen one 9 foot table with original pockets and rubber that were tight. Maybe some of the ten footers were as you say, but I say again I have not helped move or recover even one nine footer with the tight pockets pool rooms are going to today. I have played in many old pool rooms and have not run into one with tight pockets. Maybe at Hard Times tight pockets are old news, and California is a trend setting state, but in the South East tighter pockets are newer news. I do remember playing tight pockets in Vegas several years ago and did not like it then either. I have seen rooms shim up one table for gambling and practice through the years, but now they are shimming up multiple tables. I still think it is bad news for pool.
 
Gremlin said:
Most of the people who play 9-Ball don't know any other game or they would be playing it.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I play mostly 9-ball but I also know how to play, and enjoy playing, one pocket, rotation, 10-ball and 14.1, not to mention snooker and 3 cushion (I just started learning 3 cushion). However, most people around here prefer to play 9-ball. I play one-pocket some times with the older guys but no one ever wants to play 14.1, which is one of my favorite games.

I'm hoping Williebetmore will adopt me and let me live in his basement. Then I can have someone to play 14.1 with...lol.
 
Pockets and such.

Although I'm just a recreational player who loves the game I would like to add my 2 cents worth. I recently read Willie Mosconi's biography and he talks about the change from 5X10 tables with small pockets to 4.5X9 tables with larger pockets and how it changed the game. I also saw a 14.1 video recently with Jim Rempe talking about how the really fast cloth has made the game easier. I'm not sure that "dumbing down" any game is ever a good idea. Pool is (and should be) a hard game to play well, period, and it's very difficult to get very good at.....I think that's what makes the game great. I'm also not sure that making the game easier is really all that good for beginners either. If people learn to play correctly they will get better and that will make them want to play more. Look at the popularity of golf, it's a very tough game and it frustrates many beginners because of it's difficulty but the challenge is what makes it great and spectators and television audiences seem to like it fine just the way it is. Would it be better if they had gone to 12 inch diameter holes years ago so players got higher scores and the game went faster? I can't think of a game that's theoretically worse to televise than golf but it does well in spite of it's difficulty and slowness because people who play the game want to see what's possible and what the game looks like when it's played at it's best.

Call me crazy but I don't care about trying to make pool into an "extreme sport" with big pockets and "skins" formats and power-pool. I was sickened when I watched a recent game on TV and the players came into the arena in a shroud of fog from a fog-machine. Is this WWF wrestling or a game that depends on touch, skill, finesse and strategy to win? I would rather see players in tuxedos playing 14.1 on tough tables than 9-ball and fog machines. The game deserves to be a classy game not a circus-like spectacle. Billiards was once like this in the USA (late 1800's to early 1900's) and the game probably reached the height of it's popularity among mainstream sports fans during this period. I could actually care less whether pool was ever shown on TV again. Pool is a great game that's survived for 100+ years and will always appeal to people because of the challenge. It's better than any video game yet devised. Maintain the purity of the game and let TV come to pool instead of trying to turn pool into an "extreme sport" for TV.
 
My 2¢

The companies that manufacture pool tables have engineers design them. There is quite a bit of geometry that goes into playing pool well and I'm sure the manufacturer kept this in mind.
In my opinion, the double & triple shimmed pockets are bad for pool and are making the game gaffy.
The trend has really caught on here in St. Louis and it makes me sick. I think I know how & where it started but lets just say it was done in someone’s home table to get in shape for tournament play.
The foolish statement that endorses these tight pockets is - It is better for the better player if the pockets are super tight. - THAT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID.
Who is at the table more? The better player! So who benefits from the standard size pockets vs. the super tight pockets? The better player! DUH!
What really upsets me is when there is triple thick shimmed pockets - there are actually New shots available that aren't supposed to exist, especially in One Pocket.
I know for sure that an OldHasBeen trying to get back in stroke, the super tight pockets are very bad for the confidence factor.
TY & GL
 
Zagiflyer said:
Although I'm just a recreational player who loves the game I would like to add my 2 cents worth. I recently read Willie Mosconi's biography and he talks about the change from 5X10 tables with small pockets to 4.5X9 tables with larger pockets and how it changed the game. I also saw a 14.1 video recently with Jim Rempe talking about how the really fast cloth has made the game easier.
Click to expand...

This was the point I was attempting (poorly, apparently) to make. The original poster was talking about how people want to "change the tables from the way they always were", but the way he remembers them isn't how "they always were". From Mosconi's point of view, for example, the game was changed when it was moved from larger tables with tighter pockets to smaller tables with larger pockets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top