That's what I was getting at, you can't compare the two.
They're two different games with their own respective equipment. Apples and oranges, just like I said.
Last edited:
Tight pockets?
- Thread starter Socopool79
- Start date
That's what I was getting at, you can't compare the two.
They're two different games with their own respective equipment. Apples and oranges, just like I said.
It's not just the size of the pocket.
When talking about pockets there's a lot more then just the width of the pocket that determines if it plays tight.
The cut of the pocket and the shelf of the pocket are huge factors. Consider what the Bonus Ball players are playing on for a second. Smaller pockets but a shorter shelf. I think this is the table that the pros and aspiring pros should be playing on.
A ball hit cleanly down the rail into the face of the pocket at hard speeds will drop the way they are supposed to. However on other equipment it will jaw. It's not just on deep shelf tables like diamonds either. There's tables at my local pool hall that have buckets (4.5in) that will not accept these shots.
My idea of a good pocket is if I hit the rail then the ball should never drop. But if I hit clean then there's no reason why I should be denied.
But to the OP question. Play on a tight table to tighten ur game up. If u think that ur game is getting too sloppy on regulation tables then its a good way to fine tune ur game. But if u want to expand ur CB play then u can't do it on tight equipment.
When talking about pockets there's a lot more then just the width of the pocket that determines if it plays tight.
The cut of the pocket and the shelf of the pocket are huge factors. Consider what the Bonus Ball players are playing on for a second. Smaller pockets but a shorter shelf. I think this is the table that the pros and aspiring pros should be playing on.
A ball hit cleanly down the rail into the face of the pocket at hard speeds will drop the way they are supposed to. However on other equipment it will jaw. It's not just on deep shelf tables like diamonds either. There's tables at my local pool hall that have buckets (4.5in) that will not accept these shots.
My idea of a good pocket is if I hit the rail then the ball should never drop. But if I hit clean then there's no reason why I should be denied.
But to the OP question. Play on a tight table to tighten ur game up. If u think that ur game is getting too sloppy on regulation tables then its a good way to fine tune ur game. But if u want to expand ur CB play then u can't do it on tight equipment.
You can't use the basketball hoop to support your argument,
then say "And anyway, it's a different game, so all comparisons to basketball are invalid"...
that's cheating
FYI a basketball is 9.5" in diameter and the hoop is 18". It's 1 inch short of being "2 balls wide".
It'd be the equivalent of a 4.25" pocket.
I do agree it's apples and oranges anyway. The pocket size reflects what the table is being used for.
He wasn't using basketball to support his argument, he was using it in terms of another poster's basketball analogy. Also, the area of the hoop is much larger than 2 times the widest section of a basketball, because the basketball passes through the area inside the hoop rather than the diameter of the hoop, the diameter doesn't make for a valid comparison. Of course, apples to oranges is correct.
I agree, except for the pro part. The current bonus ball pockets, maybe a hair wider would be a much better test of skill than Diamond pockets. Diamond pockets just test how well you know how to play on Diamond tables.
This is the first I ever heard that the old big berthas had tiny 4 inch pockets.
Where did you see these? Are you sure that was common and not just a certain model?
Are there any pics of these old tables somewhere online, showing the small pockets?
What do you mean by that? Do you approach diamond pockets differently than, say, a brunswick pocket shimmed to the same size? I don't find myself consciously playing diamond pockets differently than other
pockets, though I do find myself adjusting to diamond's rails quite a bit.
FYI, the table difficulty factor (TDF) takes table size, pocket size, pocket facing angle, and shelf depth into consideration. For more info, see the TDF thread.
FYI, the Bonus Ball table is compared to Diamonds, Gold Crowns, and many other tables in the TDF thread. It would be interesting if people would post measurements for some of the tables mentioned in this thread to see how they compare on the toughness scale.
Thanks,
Dave
Last edited:
I mean that if you get the ball in between the points it should go down, not hang if you hit it a hair too hard. If you want a smaller target, make the opening smaller, don't angle the pockets so they spit out some balls and not others even if they hit the same part of the pocket.
And what they like, and what an audience on television may like could be two different things altogether.
Do you want pros to play on 4" pockets and have 500 serious pool viewers, or would you want pros playing on 4 1/2" pockets and have 500 serious pool viewers along with millions of social viewers? The industry as a whole sometimes needs to decide what is best for pool in general rather than what players may think. This is one of the many reasons most large sports has a governing body of many different individuals. Pool is all over the map on everything.
If you want to compare a basketball goal to pool, look at how many times the goal size has changed compared to pocket angles, size, and shelves in pool. Basketball found something good and stuck with it. Pool had a household name in 8 and 9 ball and they are somewhat put off to the side lately.
I have played quite a bit on Diamonds with "Pro Cut" pockets and don't have any problems with balls hanging up if the first thing they hit is pocket facing. The deeper shelf will cause more balls that nip the rail on the way to the pocket to hang up, but balls that go clean into the pocket always go down for me, regardless of the speed. If this isn't the case on the Diamond tables you play on, then I would guess either something about the setup doesn't match their current specs or the cloth/environmental conditions are really bad.
On that we're in agreement. I find the facings of diamonds to be more parallel than most brunswicks so
on paper they should be closer to what we consider 'fair' vs, say, a gold crown.
But over my lifetime I'd say balls rattle and hang a lot more on diamonds than on the various
shimmed or unshimmed GC's I've played on.
So I guess one of the other factors like shelf is affecting it.
"Going in clean" is not something that should affect whether or not a ball goes in. On Diamond tables you can hit the rail or the point going in at slow speed and the ball will still drop. The problem comes in when balls are hit at high speed. There is no good reason to punish high speed shots by requiring more accuracy than slow shots even though hard shots are generally more difficult in the first place. If you want a smaller target, make the pocket opening smaller, don't angle the pocket so that it favors some types of shots over others.
The numbers in the TDF thread definitely show the typical Diamond playing tougher than a typical Gold Crown. It is a combination of pocket size, facing angle, and shelf depth that makes the difference, depending on which specific examples of Diamond and Gold Crown you are comparing.
Regards,
Dave
On every pool table I have played on, there are shots that will drop at low speeds that rattle at high speeds, but that is because of the spin that the object ball picks up off the rail. On properly cut pockets, you could fire a ball in at the same angle without spin and it would drop. As the shelf gets deeper and/or the pocket mouth to throat ratio increases, less spin is required to cause the ball to rattle. My point about pro-cut Diamond tables was that an object ball with no spin or only contact-induced spin from the cue ball that hits between the points goes on every one I have played on. If you really want pockets where you can hit between the points with any spin and never rattle a ball, you either need to remove the shelf entirely or cut the pockets so the facing draws the ball into the pocket enough that you can't overcome it with spin.
Once you get the pocket small enough with a short shelf, there is a point where either you hit the pocket and the ball goes in or you miss the pocket entirely. The Bonus ball pockets were designed like that.
This is exactly true about the pockets, and why some don't like tight pockets. My pockets are small and tough, but one in particular is extra tough. For quite a while I thought the pocket was just bad. Then, when I started filming on that table,I found out that I was actually hitting the rail first whenever a ball rattled or got kicked back out. I learned that on left cuts, I was undercutting a hair, causing me to hit the rail first. Took a little while, but got that corrected, and now that pocket is no tougher than any other pocket on the table.
Tight pockets teach you to be accurate in your aiming, and not settle for being a little sloppy with it. As far as position play, the tightness of the pocket doesn't change a thing there. You can still hit hard into the pocket and make it, which means you can also apply whatever english you want to for position. If you can't get position without hitting the rail first, you also need to work on accurately hitting the cb and stroking correctly so you can do those things with the cb.
Here's an example of a shot I did today- put the ob one half diamond in from the left pocket at the foot of the table and about two balls off the end rail. Place the cb up table in the kitchen so that the center of the cb is even with the inside edge of the ob (I/2 ball hit). Now, using extreme draw and right english , have the ball pocketed and have the cb hit the end rail, then hit the right side rail about the first diamond from the corner, and then have the cb spin up table and hit the head rail around by the middle diamond.
There is never any need to get any more spin than that on a ball. So, to say you can't play position off tight pockets is nothing more than an excuse, it's not reality. Sorry if that offends anyone on here, but maybe it will open a few eyes and make some on here start paying closer attention to what they are actually doing. If you want to play better than you do now, you have to change how you play now. One of those big changes is nothing more than actually being careful of what you actually are doing.
Unfortunately, I have none - just the stories I've read.
Some of the old tables had a little trench in the slate that leaned toward the pocket too - ever seen that? If you hit a ball slowly anywhere near the pocket, it dribbles in. Glad they got rid of those!
Last edited:
Playing in tight pockets made me pay a lot more attention to my angles and position routes, because the shot angles can't be manipulated as much as with buckets.
I agree that the shot angles are more limited. However, you just have to learn how to use english correctly to make up for that, and then there is no difference in what you can do. None that really matters anyway.
Neil, It's this simple: Tighter pockets mean you miss more often. You make it sound as though by tightening the pockets you will get better and actually make more balls than you did before. No! You are just going to miss more balls. Please tell me how this makes our game more popular. I think we are going in the wrong direction. Look around!
Yes, at first you will miss more often. And, you will continue to miss more often until you realize that your aim is insufficient and do something to correct that. For someone with proper aiming skills to start with, the tight pockets give him an edge over someone that is sloppy in their aiming.
For those that really care about their game, tighter pockets will make you get better. I know they did for me, and they have for many people. They make you be more precise in everything you do, which in turn translates to playing better. Of course, there's always the other option too, just complain about tight pockets instead of actually practicing better so they aren't a problem. But, that's only for the serious players. The average player doesn't need or want tight pockets. They aren't really trying to get better, they are just out to have fun playing pool. For them, give them buckets.
You want the game to be rewarding for less skill. Then do what I saw one room do, make the pockets six inches wide. It will make everyone feel like a champion player.
Most pro tournament conditions include 4.5" pockets right?
How can someone practice cheating pocket (essential to position play in Pool) in too narrow pockets?..
What is the factor that doesn't allow a seriously practicing player to identify in practice that "I did make the ball but not in the best way"?..
Why there are pros that do not recommend practicing in too narrow pockets?..
Pool is a different game than Snooker and most of the Snooker players can't keep up with Pool pros, certailnly not because of pocket ability but mostly because they lack in break ability and position ability (smaller areas).
If the theory "the smaller the better" would be true we would have at least one top champion that practiced her/his skills in 2.3" pockets, one coming out of the many players around the globe that have practiced in really narrow pockets..
For commercial reasons the great Mosconi himself was in favour of large pockets and he was right.
Now if a player has good results by practicing only center pocket and she/he is able to compensate for the rest during tournament play (difficult but possible) that's fine too, whatever works for an individual, there are always exceptions...
How can someone practice cheating pocket (essential to position play in Pool) in too narrow pockets?..
What is the factor that doesn't allow a seriously practicing player to identify in practice that "I did make the ball but not in the best way"?..
Why there are pros that do not recommend practicing in too narrow pockets?..
Pool is a different game than Snooker and most of the Snooker players can't keep up with Pool pros, certailnly not because of pocket ability but mostly because they lack in break ability and position ability (smaller areas).
If the theory "the smaller the better" would be true we would have at least one top champion that practiced her/his skills in 2.3" pockets, one coming out of the many players around the globe that have practiced in really narrow pockets..
For commercial reasons the great Mosconi himself was in favour of large pockets and he was right.
Now if a player has good results by practicing only center pocket and she/he is able to compensate for the rest during tournament play (difficult but possible) that's fine too, whatever works for an individual, there are always exceptions...
Last edited: