Tight Pockets=tight Money

[cueman]

I play in a fair amount of tournaments and feel that pool is being ruined without those responsible even knowing it. What I am talking about is the tight pockets. I have been playing tournaments for almost 20 years and tournaments used to be exciting when Johnny Archer ran 8 racks. Now they have tightened the pockets up to the point you can't slam a ball up the rail. Balls jar all the time. To be frank pool is now boring to watch because the mulitple rack running, power pool is disappearing.
I played the South East Open event in Athens Georgia this weekend and noticed they had shimmed the tables up tighter than the last time I was there. There were hardly any 3 rack runs. Let alone anyone running the set out. Yes this is better for the really straight shooting players like Johnny and Earl, but without television money where is pool going? No where! That is where! And those top players that keep wanting tougher playing conditions are cutting their own throats, because they are making pool boring to watch.
I watched a few matches on TV recently and there was one awesome power shot. Yes it was a great shot but it was only one. So if they want television audiences, loosen back up the pockets, because small pockets = small audiences and tight pockets = tight money. Bigger pockets might = deeper pockets if it can make pool more enjoyable to watch.
I am a player and appreciate what I see them doing on those tight pockets, but most just see those pros rattling balls and leaving the opponent an easy out. I played another tournament and won the winners bracket playing on regular pocket tables. Then in the finals they make me play on a double shimmed practice table. The guy I had just ran over in the winners bracket finals, runs over me two sets in a row. I kept jarring balls, leaving him a hanger to start his run from. Is that really fair? It was almost like playing snooker in the finals. Snooker is not popular here in the states and the more pool becomes like snooker, the less popular it will become. I had to slow roll anything close to a rail in. Slow rolling pool is boring.
What do you guys think?
Chris
www.hightowercues.com
www.internationalcuemakers.com

 

[sjm]

I play in a fair amount of tournaments and feel that pool is being ruined without those responsible even knowing it. What I am talking about is the tight pockets. ...What do you guys think?

I think you are mistaken. Although a few tournaments use tight pocket equipment, the trend has been toward looser and looser equipment. Indeed, some pros have posted on this very point. In fact, Grady Matthews was so apalled by the comically loose table conditions at the UPA World Summit of Pool that he termed the pockets "cavernous." Fairly loose equipment was used at the UPA Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge, as well. I'm of the opinion that the men have never competed on looser equipment than they do now.

I'll tell you, though, I couldn't agree with you more that tight pockets can compromise the excitement of the game. Having said that, however, I believe that tight pockets should be used at the most major championships, most notably the WPC, US Open and BCA Open.

This would be quite comparable to the prevailing view in golf, where the PGA and USGA seem to agree that the biggest events should be contested on the toughest courses. Still, even then, you can go too far. The USGA made a joke of the 2004 US Open at shinnecock by setting it up too tough.

Finally, as for stringing racks, that can't happen now that most of the top men's events in America have alternate break.

 

[woody_968]

I dont know how much it is/will affect the TV viewers, but I will say that I think the trend for small pockets could be hurting the casual players that may want to take up the game. A normal pool room shimming all the pockets to satisfy a few players that want tight tables makes it hard on begginers that come in to play. And can make it so frustrating that they decide to spend their time doing other things.

JMO

Woody

 

[biggame]

What do you consider a tight table? How many inches because the tables at the u.s. open were loose and they were smaller then 4 1/2 inches.

 

[JimS]

Tight pockets require more skill and it's the most skilled who should be winning the tournament. If you can't make balls on a table with tight pockets you have to practice and become more accurate.

 

[sliprock]

Personally, I like tight pockets, but I don't like pockets that have been shimmed. The pockets on a Diamond Pro are my favorites. They will accept any well hit ball, and I don't remember hanging any balls that weren't at least a little wide of target. I've noticed that with pockets that have been shimmed, the balls sometimes reacts funny going into the pockets. I don't know if this is caused by the angle of the shims, or the material they use as the shims, or the table guy not knowing what he's doing. Personally,I'd rather play on a tough table with 41/2 in. pockets that are fair, than play on a table with 5 in. pockets that have been shimmed to 4 3/4. The shimmed table will play harder in my opinion.

 

[bud green]

Big pockets made a joke out of some of the earlier (90's) Sands events. There were a lot of blowouts and if a corner ball was flying in, it was like watching someone practice it made it so easy for Earl,Johnny,etc... personally I think big pockets and the Sardo make WPBA almost unwatchable.

If snooker players can run 147's in six minutes, or run 4000 100's in practice like Stephen Hendry, then I don't see any reason nineballers can't learn to shoot straight enough for small pockets. Tight pockets bring more strategy to nine ball; some tables are so easy players don't even worry about position hardly because they know they can make almost any shot on the table.

Besides, I'm tired of hearing about the old timers playing better on 10 footers with tight pockets than todays players on loose 9 footers.

 

[DeadAim]

Recreation tables should have “NORMAL” sized pockets so the casual player and family’s can enjoy themselves, otherwise the game of billiards will die a RAPID death rather than the slow one it is now bogged down in.

Pro tournament tables should have undersized/shimmed pockets to accommodate pro skill levels. The game has gotten too EASY for the pro players:

Large Pockets

Fast Clothes

Rule Changes

Here’s how “I” think the game should be played:

80/20 Mali Cloth

4 ½ Inch Pocket Opening

68 Degree Temperature to retard Cushions

No Jump Shots, make them illegal

BOY, you BETTER have a GOOD stroke; because the days of tapping the cue ball and watching it fly around the table are OVER.

The game of 9 Ball should be played by Grady’s Rules (no luck rules); OR, Push Out (no push outs on safes or yourself). NO Jump Shots, have some pride in yourself and show me what you know by KICKING at the ball.

 

[Doug]

Tight pockets

I've noticed Grady Matthews describes virtually all tournament tables as having "cavernous" pockets---after he has been eliminated and back in the Accustats booth. As someone already mentioned the best players will win regardless of pocket size but maybe not by such lopsided scores as they do with tighter pockets. As for the recreational player (which most of us are) if all pool tables used the same exact sized pockets no one would be discussing pocket size. The length, width, and net height on ping pong tables is never an issue of discussion because all tables from the cheapest to the most expensive are built to the same requirements and used by both amatuer and professional events. Same with tennis. Lack of uniformity seems to be the culprit.

 

[cueman]

Hi,

I disagree! Pool is not golf! Pool has a set of rules to go by. Here are the rules on poket size.

WPA Tournament Table & Equipment Specifications November 2001

9. Pocket Openings and Measurements

Only rubber facings of minimum 1/16 [1.5875 mm] to maximum ¼ inch [6.35 mm] thick may be used at pocket jaws. The WPA-preferred maximum thickness for facings is 1/8 inch [3.175 mm]. The facings on both sides of the pockets must be of the same thickness. Facings must be of hard re-enforced rubber glued with strong bond to the cushion and the rail, and adequately fastened to the wood rail liner to prevent shifting. The rubber of the facings should be somewhat harder than that of the cushions.

The pocket openings for pool tables are measured between opposing cushion noses where the direction changes into the pocket (from pointed lip to pointed lip). This is called mouth.

Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
Side Pocket Mouth: between 5 [12.7 cm] and 5.125 inches [13.0175 cm]
*The mouth of the side pocket is traditionally ½ inch [1.27 cm] wider than
the mouth of the corner pocket.

Vertical Pocket Angle (Back Draft): 12 degrees minimum to15 degrees maximum.

Horizontal Pocket Cut Angle: The angle must be the same on both sides of a pocket entrance. The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the corner pocket entrance must be 142 degrees (+1). The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the side pocket entrance must be 104 degrees (+1).

Shelf: The shelf is measured from the center of the imaginary line that goes from one side of the mouth to the other - where the nose of the cushion changes direction - to the vertical cut of the slate pocket cut. Shelf includes bevel.

Corner Pocket Shelf: between 1 [2.54 cm] and 2 ¼ inches [5.715 cm]
Side Pocket Shelf: between 0 and .375 inches [.9525 cm]

This is what should be uniform in the world. My GC4 at home is set to WPA World specs. Making the pockets smaller only favors the better players who
will win anyway regardless of pocket size.

"Gremlin"

If I am understanding this right. The tightest part of the pocket in the back of the pocket would be 4.5". This would be a little tighter than older style pockets, but looser than most places are shimming them to now. This would mean that the two balls would get snug but still fall into the pocket side by side with hand pressure. That is tight but reasonable. If it means the front (widest part) of the pocket is only 4.5" wide that is really tight. If you can slam a ball up the rail 1/4" off the rail perfectly parallel with the rail and it not fall, that is not pool. They are taking the power pool out of pool. I like the fast cloth, but must admit that I can beat players on slow cloth that can beat me consistantly on Simonis. Maybe Dead Aims way of doing things except for tight pockets would bring some excitement back into the game. No, pool is not a circus. And it does not fill the grandstands either, like it did mid last century. Empty grandstands mean a decline in popularity among viewers and that can't be good. If the players would rather play for peanuts on tight tables, than for real cash on looser pockets with full grandstands, then maybe pool is becoming a different kind of circus.
Chris
www.hightowercues.com
www.internationalcuemakers.com

 

[jrhendy]

Tight Pockets

Most of the action or tournament rooms in California have double shimmed pockets. Much of the reason for this is the growing popularity of one pocket. Most of the bigger pool room tournaments cover the tables just before a tournament and they play a little easier than they will after a lot of play. Good pocket speed and hitting the pocket overcomes tight pockets. If you are used to ramming balls in and loading up the cueball with english from playing on loose equipment, you are going to hate double shimmed tables. Part of the game is adjusting to the equipment you are playing on. JMO

 

[mjantti]

If you watch wpc 2004 for instance, I think those pockets are sucking every ball in if you hit it within the diamond... Well, wpc is a spectator event but I think they could tighten up the pockets a bit. Especially straight pool events should be played on a slightly tighter pockets, not too tight though. 2000 14.1 US Open tables seemed to have buckets for pockets....

 

[sjm]

The alternating breaks make comebacks more likely.

Though I liked your post, Whitewolf, this just isn't so. Alternate breaks tightens the earlier stages of matches, but you don't see nearly as many comebacks in the alternate break format. I attended the BCA Open, the Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge, and the World Summit of Pool, all having alternate break, and the results confirmed that when players having strong breaks compete against each other, big comebacks are rare because the trailing player is denied the opportunity to string racks together.

 

[Celtic]

Wow, well I disagree hugely with the original poster. I think along the lines of alot of other people that the game has gotten WAY too easy. Looser pockets is the LAST thing people need, I would much rather watch two pro's play against each other on tight pockets and have to play precise pool then watch them break and run 10 racks in a row on a table with buckets, that is boring to me.

It's like snooker on TV. Ever notice they almost NEVER showed the break shot and the initial safety battles that ensued? They simply show the first ball pocketed and the century run that follows, that is BORING. The game is not won at the century run, it is won at the safety battle. They took the BEST part of the game out of the TV, there are only so many century runs you can watch and skip all of the initial breakshots and safety battles before I am bored to tears. I want to see the hooks, the kicks, the safeties.

Perhaps the best pool I watch is when you get two top players who get into a safety battle and start kick safing each other back and forth, Efren vs Archer safety battle at hill hill where they both shoot about 5 kick safes against each other in a row, or maybe Strickland. Look at the hill hill match where Efren beat Strickland with the "shot heard around the world" that whole last part of that game was like a chess match on a pool table of kicks and return safes. I would MUCH rather watch that then watch someone running afew racks in a row. Runout pool is boring, and Joe Public will find it just as boring if not more so then a actual pool player like myself. 9-ball is too easy as the pro game, we need a game that tests the players and lessens the number of runouts, not loosening the pockets and having people winning matches on the flip of a coin.

 

[sjm]

I want to see the hooks, the kicks, the safeties.

Perhaps the best pool I watch is when you get two top players who get into a safety battle and start kick safing each other back and forth, Efren vs Archer safety battle at hill hill where they both shoot about 5 kick safes against each other in a row, or maybe Strickland. Look at the hill hill match where Efren beat Strickland with the "shot heard around the world" that whole last part of that game was like a chess match on a pool table of kicks and return safes.

Bravo, Celtic. My thoughts exactly, yet I think you and I are in the minority. For every time the beauty of the nine ball moves game is cited on this forum, there are ten posts in which a set of nine ball rules that is basically total offense (such as ball in hand on any miss) is advocated. Defense, two way shots and kicking are, in my opinion, the most interesting aspects of nine ball.

The hill-hill rack between Reyes and Pagulayan at this year's BCA Open was a classic in which the number of consecutive brilliant tactical shots was breathtaking. Even Reyes appeared to be in shock over how many brilliant tacital responses Alex was up to, and Alex certainly earned that win the hard way.

The bottom line here is that it takes more skill to win control of the table and then run out than to just run out.

 

[cueman]

Wow, well I disagree hugely with the original poster. I think along the lines of alot of other people that the game has gotten WAY too easy. Looser pockets is the LAST thing people need, I would much rather watch two pro's play against each other on tight pockets and have to play precise pool then watch them break and run 10 racks in a row on a table with buckets, that is boring to me.

It's like snooker on TV. Ever notice they almost NEVER showed the break shot and the initial safety battles that ensued? They simply show the first ball pocketed and the century run that follows, that is BORING. The game is not won at the century run, it is won at the safety battle. They took the BEST part of the game out of the TV, there are only so many century runs you can watch and skip all of the initial breakshots and safety battles before I am bored to tears. I want to see the hooks, the kicks, the safeties.

Perhaps the best pool I watch is when you get two top players who get into a safety battle and start kick safing each other back and forth, Efren vs Archer safety battle at hill hill where they both shoot about 5 kick safes against each other in a row, or maybe Strickland. Look at the hill hill match where Efren beat Strickland with the "shot heard around the world" that whole last part of that game was like a chess match on a pool table of kicks and return safes. I would MUCH rather watch that then watch someone running afew racks in a row. Runout pool is boring, and Joe Public will find it just as boring if not more so then a actual pool player like myself. 9-ball is too easy as the pro game, we need a game that tests the players and lessens the number of runouts, not loosening the pockets and having people winning matches on the flip of a coin.

Pockets are the subject here. So where do you get that pool has gotten too easy? How has pool pockets become easier? Pool has always had pockets that you could pull two balls to the back of the pocket and both drop in the pocket. That is pool. That is how it has been for decades and the last few years they have started shimming pockets. That makes pool harder not easier. Faster cloth may have made it easier, but only one poster so far has suggested going back to slower cloth. Tight pockets and fast cloth favor the pattern player over the power player. Power pool is more fun to watch. Why not go back to super slow cloth as that makes people have to shoot hard instead of babying balls in? That would make the game harder. People who claim to want tougher conditions really just want a shot making advantage, as the players with a powerful stroke would eat the shot makers lunch on normal size pockets with slower cloth. Most players don't want tougher conditions, they just want something that favors their style of play. I guess we all do and that is why I want the old pockets back.

 

[cueman]

It's like snooker on TV. Ever notice they almost NEVER showed the break shot and the initial safety battles that ensued? They simply show the first ball pocketed and the century run that follows, that is BORING. The game is not won at the century run, it is won at the safety battle. They took the BEST part of the game out of the TV, there are only so many century runs you can watch and skip all of the initial breakshots and safety battles before I am bored to tears. I want to see the hooks, the kicks, the safeties.
QUOTE]

Yes I agree I like to see safeties and hooks and kicks. But look what snooker pays. Many times what pool pays. And you just said what they show is the century runs. That is what brings in the $$$$$ The 4 point snookers don't get the advertising $$$ that the players need. But century runs do bring in those $$$$. One rack runs and let the other guy break won't bring in those $$$$$. The subject is Tight Pockets = Tight Money. Not what you like or I like or what we don't like. The subject is which is best to bring in the $$$$. I am unconvinced by anything posted so far that making the pockets tighter will create larger audiences. I used to go to tournaments that they had to bring bleachers to hold watchers. Now your lucky if 20 pr 30 people sweat the matches at the mid size pro am events.

 

[sjm]

I am unconvinced by anything posted so far that making the pockets tighter will create larger audiences. I used to go to tournaments that they had to bring bleachers to hold watchers. Now your lucky if 20 pr 30 people sweat the matches at the mid size pro am events.

Cueman, I'm inclined to agree with you that pocket size is not significant in whether the game will bring in sponsor money. Though I feel strongly that use of very loose pockets strips nine ball of some of its most interesting elements and can, to a point, randomize the results, I must concede that I don't think the average fan gives a hoot about pocket size. I don't mind if the tactical warfare for control of the table is edited out of pool telecasts, but when I attend an event, I'd like to see professionals competing on equipment that befits their level of play.

 

[cueman]

There would be no 526 run to still be talked about if the pockets had been tight. Beginners are now having to learn how to play on tight pockets and it makes the game less fun for them. It would not surprise me to see a major resurgence of large field bar table tournaments. As a matterof fact I think most tournaments that draw 200 plus fields are bar table events. I hear people coming back from bar table tournaments talking about a young hot shot kid putting 8 racks together. All I hear from most pro events is who won and what the score was. No real highlights, other than so and so made a great shot. I guess I will just have to pray bar table pool saves pool. Bar table pool is still fun for beginners.

 

[cueman]

And, to make the same point that I made in my last post, for the professional players to play on bucket-sized pockets isn't a fair test of their skill level. How about making NFL football fields 50 yards long instead of 100 because, after all, it's touchdowns that make football exciting? I'm not saying to make the pockets so tight that it takes some shots completely out of the game which, admittedly, some places have done, but I don't see anything wrong with, say, 4 1/2" pockets. Some people might think those are too big even, but I think that is a fair size. Is that still too tight?

So until a few years ago you are saying there was no fair test of skill level since the tables had normal pockets. So Sigels 100 professional wins were not a fair test of skill in you opinion. But my opinion is that it was a very fair test of skill. 9 foot tables had about 4.75" pockets in the back of the pocket and that was considered fair. Sharp shooters want them tighter to give them an advantage. I feel your football field length comparison is wrong. Because they tightened the pockets, they didn't loosen them up. If I had sway in football and made the field length 150 yards that would be the right comparison. Maybe 100 yards is too easy. Let's make it 150. 100 yards is like buckets. Instead of 10 yards to first down let's make it 15 yards. Instead of 4 downs let's make it three. Okay so the new rules are 150 yard field, 15 yards to first down and only three downs. Now the game is harder. Three years from now some suggest going back to how it was for decades. They are cry babies, as everyone knows that would make foot ball too easy. We would go back to seeing scores of 40 to 35 instead of 6 to 0. Too easy. Much too easy. We might also go back to the days when we needed 50,000 plus seats to hold the fans instead of our prime 5000 all front row seats.
You get the point. You feel pool was too easy. You support the changes and I do not. But you act like the tighter pockets have always been the norm. They were not.