Tight Pockets

[Straightpool_99]

This whole "tight pocket" debate has been done many times allready on this forum. I think the issue is less simple than some make it appear. Obviously, on perfectly maintained tournament tables with brand new cloths and professionals playing on them, tight pockets are ok. Those tables get serviced by the best and always have new cloths on them, helping the balls drop.

On the other hand, most of us play in pool halls, whose economic situations do not seem to get better as time goes by..If the pockets are done even slightly bad, or the facing gets hammered by constant play, then the pockets will no longer play right, and that is the situation that 95% of us will be facing. Not just us purists, but casual and low level players will be constantly annoyed by rattling balls, taking every bit of fun out of the game.

Regarding the OP's diagrammed shot, not all GCs with tight pockets are alike, as some seem to suggest. The angle of the facings, the material used in the facing, the thickness of the facing, the wear and tear on it, shelf depths etc...All of these things will matter, with the added normal factors like humidity, cloth wear etc...No firm statement can be made on a matter like this. All I can say is: If your game is 14.1 and you want advice on pocket size, I would strongly advice against anything smaller than professionally done 4.5 inch pockets (and recommend 4.75), and if your mechanic is not top notch I would extend that recommendation to all games (except maybe one pocket). I'm so sick and tired of tables with "trouble pockets" that must be avoided etc..Some of you will know what I'm talking about.

I've played on lots of different snooker tables, and I can honestly say I've never felt robbed by a pocket, like I have countless times on the pool table. Pool pockets are difficult to get right and unless you are on a factory fresh diamond 4.5 inch pocket, there will be some issue with nearly every table built, even GC's with buckets will sometimes act up.

 

[KissedOut]

Everyone in this thread must be the best pool player in their town. Wish I could say 4.5" pockets is too loose.

There seems to be some kind of prevailing belief, in some, that the pocket sizes are inversely proportional to a certain body part's size.

 

[DrCue'sProtege]

The only thing that is obvious is your wrong about most things when it comes to billiards

Such as?

r/DCP

 

[fastone371]

This is where I disagree. If you hit the ball into the rail before the pocket, it may or may not go. But it definitely should not be expected to go as a default. Even on a very shallow angle.

On the other hand, if you hit the ball into the facing of the pocket, and it never touches the rail on the way in, then it should almost ALWAYS GO. This I believe is what RKC was having you test.

^^^^^^ What he said. Why tighten your pockets to 4 1/4" anyway unless all you play is one pocket? Tight pockets changes the way you play rotation and 8 ball drastically.

My pockets are 4 1/2" and they play well. It is not shimmed, the sub-rails were extended to tighten the pockets. The only problem I have is with these pockets if you clip the rail with speed the ball will most likely rattle. Thats not a problem with the pocket size/angle but rather a characteristic of tight pockets. I may have them opened up to 4 3/4" in the future.

 

[JoeyInCali]

^^^^^^ What he said. Why tighten your pockets to 4 1/4" anyway unless all you play is one pocket? Tight pockets changes the way you play rotation and 8 ball drastically.

My pockets are 4 1/2" and they play well. It is not shimmed, the sub-rails were extended to tighten the pockets. The only problem I have is with these pockets if you clip the rail with speed the ball will most likely rattle. Thats not a problem with the pocket size/angle but rather a characteristic of tight pockets. I may have them opened up to 4 3/4" in the future.

What's the corner facing angle ?
If they're 143*, they're spitters.
IMHO, 4 3/8 at 139* would be ok to most players .

The famous pool halls here and Northern California have tightened pockets done by a pro-player/mech. A lot of them are some 4 1/4" to 3 7/8" corners. He makes the angles to almost parallel ( no flare ) . The 3 7/8" infamous ones are so tight, even Bustamante and SVB think they are brutal. SVB refuses to play money games on them.

This tight pocket fad has gotten out of control imo.
4 1/4" corners ( and leave the side pockets alone ) should be the minimum size for corners imo.

 

[realkingcobra]

All you have to do is look. That's all. Its as obvious as can be.

Really, I must be blind....so help me out here a little will ya.....could you just write down the things Diamond copied from a Gold Crown....because I just don't see it. I mean, I looked real hard too....I just couldn't find the Diamond pocket castings, metal trim on the outside edges of the rails, plastic drop pockets.....I mean, I just can't figure out what you're talking about.....unless of course you're referring to China copying the Gold Crowns....now that I can see with my eyes closed, only thing is.....they fall apart in time, unlike a real Gold Crown.

 

[ps611846]

Lots of players talk about the Gold Crown rattle. One of the rooms I used to play at had GC2&3. Those tables would reject ball all the time that were hit hard.

Hit hard but not with proper technique maybe ? It SHOULD NOT GO if you hit it the same way you slow roll it. Or stun it. This can only happen on "loose" tables. And you can see that the hit was not good but the object ball goes into the bucket.

Good shotmakers know these things. And they develop different techniques for different strokes.

Tight pockets will force the player to learn how to play cue ball speed. Shots that SHOULD NOT GO IN, will be rejected.

 

[realkingcobra]

The best way to check how much a person can cheat a pocket, even tight pockets is to place a 2 ball combination along a head side rail about an inch out form the side cushion pointing straight down the rail. Start out shooting the combo straight on and pay attention to where the second ball hits at the corner pocket. Then start shooting the outside edge of the first ball gradually throwing the second ball further and further into the rail on the way to the corner pocket....watch where it's coming into contact with the far side.rail up from the corner pocket, vary the speed in which you hit the combo. You'll find out that you can miss the corner pocket by almost 2 diamonds up, and still make the ball if it's rolling soft enough....key word there is soft enough.

 

[DrCue'sProtege]

Really, I must be blind....so help me out here a little will ya.....could you just write down the things Diamond copied from a Gold Crown....because I just don't see it. I mean, I looked real hard too....I just couldn't find the Diamond pocket castings, metal trim on the outside edges of the rails, plastic drop pockets.....I mean, I just can't figure out what you're talking about.....unless of course you're referring to China copying the Gold Crowns....now that I can see with my eyes closed, only thing is.....they fall apart in time, unlike a real Gold Crown.

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

 

[mattb]

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

When Diamond was started they took a Gold Crown, the preferred table for serious players at the time, and took one apart to see what made it what it was. The frame, while different, was based loosely on the Gold Crown. It was also based very loosely on a Steepleton table where the first tables were made before Greg and the owner of Steepleton had a falling out.

The tops were also based on a Gold Crown with the obvious difference that there be no metal. One major reason was the castings scratched up cues and Greg was a big one handed player back in the day. But the tops had to be heavy. That's one reason they play so well. The rail rubber has a chance to do what it's supposed to do without flex or movement. It's also easier to align the rails as compared to those home furniture tables with extra "joints" where either a casting or pocket is.

I delivered some of the very first Diamonds. I have also worked on Gold Crowns 1-4.

 

[realkingcobra]

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

Only if you close both eyes and THINK you know what you're talking about, why don't you look at them again with your ONE good eye.

 

[realkingcobra]

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

Only if you close both eyes and THINK you know what you're talking about, why don't you look at them again with your ONE good eye. You wouldn't make that stupid statement if both tables were side by side in the same picture....and yet you accuse Diamond of copying a Gold Crown....and yet are oblivious to the Chinese table manufacturers building replica knock off Gold Crowns, right down to the pockets and pocket castings....why is that I wonder

 

[realkingcobra]

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

What model GC is that pictured....do you even know?

 

[Bob 14:1]

For the life of me, I simply cannot see why so many would even bother wasting their time trying to educate DCP. Clearly, Dr. Cue failed miserably.

He's self centered, unappreciative, has to my knowledge, never contributed one single informative post, let alone an informative thread, anywhere, at any time, to other members of this forum.

It's all me, me, me! Asking redundant questions, sitting lazily back awaiting answers, then after *****ing about the results, doing what he previously intended anyway.

As for me, I'm on his blocked list and mostly tune in when I'm in need of some entertainment. This is as shameful as it is annoying.

 

[realkingcobra]

When Diamond was started they took a Gold Crown, the preferred table for serious players at the time, and took one apart to see what made it what it was. The frame, while different, was based loosely on the Gold Crown. It was also based very loosely on a Steepleton table where the first tables were made before Greg and the owner of Steepleton had a falling out.

The tops were also based on a Gold Crown with the obvious difference that there be no metal. One major reason was the castings scratched up cues and Greg was a big one handed player back in the day. But the tops had to be heavy. That's one reason they play so well. The rail rubber has a chance to do what it's supposed to do without flex or movement. It's also easier to align the rails as compared to those home furniture tables with extra "joints" where either a casting or pocket is.

I delivered some of the very first Diamonds. I have also worked on Gold Crowns 1-4.

I've worked on some of the first Diamond Professionals built, and if Greg tried to copy a GC, he did a bad job of doing it because the tables are so different it's night and day. I've NEVER turned down working on a GC because it was built so bad from the start....but I've learned to turn down working on the earliest built Diamond Professionals

 

[mattb]

I've worked on some of the first Diamond Professionals built, and if Greg tried to copy a GC, he did a bad job of doing it because the tables are so different it's night and day. I've NEVER turned down working on a GC because it was built so bad from the start....but I've learned to turn down working on the earliest built Diamond Professionals

I think you misread my post. I never said he tried to copy it but instead looked at what worked on the Gold Crown and why, and then proceeded to improve on it. But there is no denying the lineage is there.

Believe it or not, I actually prefer the first Diamonds. I looked for one before I ended up buying a circa 2008 model. I know the complaints some have with them and the obvious updates of the newer ones but darn I liked the way they played.

The way the top can come off in one piece after loosening the pockets and rail bolts is like a gold crown. The frames have numerous similarities as opposed to something like a furniture table where the frame is more furniture than frame. The pedestal legs with leg levelers for ease of set up is also reminiscent of later gold crowns. Even the apron angles are similar but if I remember correctly the Diamond has more of an angle than a gold crown (but that may be opposite as I have not played or worked on a gold crown in a long time).

 

[mattb]

Apology to the OP

I apologize as it seems I have helped to derail the thread trying to pass on some information about tables that does not have anything to do with the original post.

So back to the original thread...

I own and practice on a tight playing diamond. I too notice the same thing, I do not make as many balls on the break and on my somewhat worn cloth, it will spit a ball in a heartbeat if it has too much power or English on it. But when I play out it makes other tables seem easier to play on.

Since I am the only one who plays on my table, being tight is ok. If I had friends that played on it with lower skill level than I, I would want an easier playing pocket.

 

[realkingcobra]

I think you misread my post. I never said he tried to copy it but instead looked at what worked on the Gold Crown and why, and then proceeded to improve on it. But there is no denying the lineage is there.

Believe it or not, I actually prefer the first Diamonds. I looked for one before I ended up buying a circa 2008 model. I know the complaints some have with them and the obvious updates of the newer ones but darn I liked the way they played.

The way the top can come off in one piece after loosening the pockets and rail bolts is like a gold crown. The frames have numerous similarities as opposed to something like a furniture table where the frame is more furniture than frame. The pedestal legs with leg levelers for ease of set up is also reminiscent of later gold crowns. Even the apron angles are similar but if I remember correctly the Diamond has more of an angle than a gold crown (but that may be opposite as I have not played or worked on a gold crown in a long time).

Looking at how something is built does not create lineage, copying what you looked at does however. If Greg HAD copied anything from a GC, he did so miserably. Gandy top rails come off in one section, so does AMF commercial pool tables. Their frames are closer to that of a GC than Diamonds ever were, which in the beginning sucked being built out of plywood standing on edge. If Greg would have copied the GC rails, he'd have nevery started out using wood screw mounted nut plates silver dollar sized to bolt the rails down when Brunswick was using the floating capture nut system, which was the best system there was at the time to mount the rails. No, I totally dissagree that Greg did any coping of a GC what-so-ever because the two different tables share absolutely nothing in common other than they both have slate, cushions, sights, and pockets....just like all other pool tables do.

 

[jtompilot]

Here's a pic of the Gold Crown and the Diamond Professional. Gee RKC, you must be right. Hardly any similarities in appearance there at all. I mean, they only look almost identical.

OK, you win. Those four feet look almost identical from your pic. The rest of the table look just as similar as a new VW bug and a Porshe 911.

 

[bradsh98]

OK, you win. Those four feet look almost identical from your pic. The rest of the table look just as similar as a new VW bug and a Porshe 911.

Hmmm...