When is a pool pocket too tight?

[realkingcobra]

With tighter pockets, you have to focus more & tighter pockets also distinguish the best players.

One would think that if PRACTICING on a tightass table all the time, the player just shouldn't MISS on a table with 4 1/2" pockets right? Yet, the players that advocate tightass pockets as the way separate the best from the best...are NOT the players winning all the tournaments around the world....why is that?

 

[ChrisinNC]

When the game stops being enjoyable and you just lose interest in trying to play your best.

That's when the pockets are too tight and so obviously, that will vary by individual & skill level.

For some people it may be 4 1/4" pockets, for others it could be 4.5" & for, some even 4 7/8".

With tighter pockets, you have to focus more & tighter pockets also distinguish the best players.

Personally, a perfect table is a 10' with 4 3/8" pockets and you better have the game to tame it.


Matt B.

I certainly have developed a love/hate relationship with our tightest tables - 4-1/4" corners 9-footer or a 4-3/8" corners 10-footer. I would rate the 10-footer just a hair tougher. It's very frustrating when you miss a shot during a runout that you would rarely ever miss on our other tables. However, the degree of satisfaction you get when you do manage to break and run a rack on the tough tables makes it worth it!

If you're a good enough player to break and run at least 1 or 2 out of 10 racks when you make a ball on the break, I think it's good to mix it up and play/practice on both - tight tables as well as on more normal pocket tables. For those not capable of hardly ever breaking and running a rack, I feel they'd be better off sticking to more normal sized pockets - to experience more success and gain more confidence in learning runout patterns, which they will virtually never experience on the tough tables.

 

[ChrisinNC]

So that extra 1/8” make a difference on a 10’? That’s a 1/16” on either side depending on the angle you shoot from. I find it comical at times what people say.

But, this really isn’t a night for disputes.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

I don't know about the difference of 1/8" in the pockets, but I can confirm that a 1/4" difference - from 4-1/4" corners to 4-1/2" corners on a 10 footer is a huge difference, because we have a 10 foot table that we did recently change. At 4-1/4" corners, which is how it came to us as it had been altered for a pro tournament, it was just ridiculous how tough it played. Now altered to 4-1/2" corners has made all the difference in the world. Still a tough table, but you wouldn't believe the number of shots that go in now that wouldn't go in before.

 

[realkingcobra]

What happens to all those champion players that say after practicing on 9fts, they can't miss on a 7ft, yet it's the same hand full of players winning ALL the bar table tournaments?

 

[iusedtoberich]

I know this is mostly personal preference, and I'm probably in the minority, but I really like 5" standard GC pockets the best.

When most tight tables were shimmed GC's instead of extended rails, I believe the "players" 9 ball tables were 4.75" and the one pocket tables were 4.5". That's about what they were when I measured them in a couple of popular Philly gambling rooms a decade and a half ago. My memory might be off...

I think Diamond's 4.5" standard pocket is good for one pocket. But for rotation games, I much prefer 4.75" or 5" pockets.

If the day ever came where I ordered a Diamond table for my home, I would request it with league cut pockets.

To each his own

 

[Bavafongoul]

This is just a presumption on my part but let's try to set the facts straight at the outset about
even 10" tables with 4 1/2" pockets. If you ever played on one, you'd understand 1/8" difference
translates into a much, much tougher table to play on. Just the 4.5" pockets alone render the
10 table a monster.......the added table size makes the table a lot more difficult but when you
start messing with the pocket size, it can become a nightmare for weaker players. You had
better have a true and trusted pool stroke to conquer a 10' with 4 3/8" pockets. So yeah, 1/8"
difference on a playing surface measing 112" x 56" translates into a much tougher table.

 

[Johnnybgood]

This is just a presumption on my part but let's try to set the facts straight at the outset about
even 10" tables with 4 1/2" pockets. If you ever played on one, you'd understand 1/8" difference
translates into a much, much tougher table to play on. Just the 4.5" pockets alone render the
10 table a monster.......the added table size makes the table a lot more difficult but when you
start messing with the pocket size, it can become a nightmare for weaker players. You had
better have a true and trusted pool stroke to conquer a 10' with 4 3/8" pockets. So yeah, 1/8"
difference on a playing surface measing 112" x 56" translates into a much tougher table.

So that theory attached then if you open the pocket up by an 1/8” then the table is much easier?




Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[ChrisinNC]

So that theory attached then if you open the pocket up by an 1/8” then the table is much easier?




Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

If you're talking about a 10-foot table in the reference above, yes, altering from 4-1/2" corners to 4-5/8" corners is indeed a noticeable difference as to allowing some shots to fall that wouldn't have fallen before the change. However, it's still going to be a very tough table. When you consider a 10 foot table is 11% bigger, and every comparable shot is 11% longer distance (both CB to OB as well as OB to pocket), that basically means the pockets will play roughly 11% tighter.

So by comparison, 4-1/2" corner pocket openings on a 10-footer will play roughly the same toughness as 9-foot table with 4-inch corner pocket openings.

 

[realkingcobra]

So by comparison, 4-1/2" corner pocket openings on a 10-footer will play roughly the same toughness as 9-foot table with 4-inch corner pocket openings.

I don't know where you're getting your information from but I'm calling BS on this! What YOU fail to understand is that yes, while a 10" is bigger in its playing surface, it still has a 50"×100" playing surface inside that 56"×112" playing surface. A smart player is for the most part playing the 9ft playing surface by cutting down the distance between the cue ball anx object ball, which includes the ability to cheat the 4 1/2" corner pockets which is simply NOT the same with 4" corner pockets. Look at a snooker player, how many times do you see them laying on the table to reach out for a shot, how many times to see them using the 8' bridge and LONG cue....on a 6'×12' playing surface??? A smart snooker playier is NOT playing the whole playing surface, they keep the cue ball in the zone which is manageable. And for that matter, balls cluster less on a 10' table because they have MORE room to spread out, and that by itself makes a 10' easier to play on!!

 

[JoeyInCali]

I know this is mostly personal preference, and I'm probably in the minority, but I really like 5" standard GC pockets the best.

When most tight tables were shimmed GC's instead of extended rails, I believe the "players" 9 ball tables were 4.75" and the one pocket tables were 4.5". That's about what they were when I measured them in a couple of popular Philly gambling rooms a decade and a half ago. My memory might be off...

I think Diamond's 4.5" standard pocket is good for one pocket. But for rotation games, I much prefer 4.75" or 5" pockets.

If the day ever came where I ordered a Diamond table for my home, I would request it with league cut pockets.

To each his own

5" corners would be ridiculously easy for the pros.
Those shimmed GC's were whacked. Tighter pockets but the angles are still whacked.
Ernesto Dominguez made it his living ( for 3 decades now ) in California and all over the western states in extending the rails and tightening the pockets with his own angles.
Some are way too tight for normal souls.

 

[realkingcobra]

5" corners would be ridiculously easy for the pros.
Those shimmed GC's were whacked. Tighter pockets but the angles are still whacked.
Ernesto Dominguez made it his living ( for 3 decades now ) in California and all over the western states in extending the rails and tightening the pockets with his own angles.
Some are way too tight for normal souls.

And, when measured, 4 corner pockets turn out to be four different pocket opening, then no corner pocket plays the same either!

 

[vjmehra]

I don't know where you're getting your information from but I'm calling BS on this! What YOU fail to understand is that yes, while a 10" is bigger in its playing surface, it still has a 50"×100" playing surface inside that 56"×112" playing surface. A smart player is for the most part playing the 9ft playing surface by cutting down the distance between the cue ball anx object ball, which includes the ability to cheat the 4 1/2" corner pockets which is simply NOT the same with 4" corner pockets. Look at a snooker player, how many times do you see them laying on the table to reach out for a shot, how many times to see them using the 8' bridge and LONG cue....on a 6'×12' playing surface??? A smart snooker playier is NOT playing the whole playing surface, they keep the cue ball in the zone which is manageable.

All very logical and sensible, however your last statement is opinion not fact.

And for that matter, balls cluster less on a 10' table because they have MORE room to spread out, and that by itself makes a 10' easier to play on!!

Whilst you are of course correct about clusters in a sense, you don't typically get anything like the level of clusters on a 9ft as on a 7ft and the difference between a 10ft and 9ft in terms of clusters isn't material.

The larger the table, the harder it is for almost every player. You may be pro standard and find it genuinely easier, but your statement isn't correct for virtually every player on the planet. The larger the surface area, the harder it is to play on, even for those with near perfect cue ball control, as even for them sometimes the balls run away and they have a long shot, which is undeniably harder.

 

[realkingcobra]

All very logical and sensible, however your last statement is opinion not fact.



Whilst you are of course correct about clusters in a sense, you don't typically get anything like the level of clusters on a 9ft as on a 7ft and the difference between a 10ft and 9ft in terms of clusters isn't material.

The larger the table, the harder it is for almost every player. You may be pro standard and find it genuinely easier, but your statement isn't correct for virtually every player on the planet. The larger the surface area, the harder it is to play on, even for those with near perfect cue ball control, as even for them sometimes the balls run away and they have a long shot, which is undeniably harder.

Spend so.e time watching a snooker player run a 147, 90% of the game is played on the lower half of the table. I've been playing for about 50 years, and can tell you there's very little difference between a 9ft and a 10ft when it comes to playing 14.1 most of the balls pocketed are in the center pockets and the foot corner pockets, that's a square of 56"×56". And yes, 7fts have more clusters, but we're not talking about 7fts....are we? As far as difficulties go, a 7ft is a difficult table for most to play on as most players are novice players anyway.

 

[realkingcobra]

All very logical and sensible, however your last statement is opinion not fact.



Whilst you are of course correct about clusters in a sense, you don't typically get anything like the level of clusters on a 9ft as on a 7ft and the difference between a 10ft and 9ft in terms of clusters isn't material.

The larger the table, the harder it is for almost every player. You may be pro standard and find it genuinely easier, but your statement isn't correct for virtually every player on the planet. The larger the surface area, the harder it is to play on, even for those with near perfect cue ball control, as even for them sometimes the balls run away and they have a long shot, which is undeniably harder.

No statement is correct for every player on the planet, but who's talking about every player on the planet anyway? Most players today have never even seen a 10' table, let alone played on one!

 

[vjmehra]

Spend so.e time watching a snooker player run a 147, 90% of the game is played on the lower half of the table. I've been playing for about 50 years, and can tell you there's very little difference between a 9ft and a 10ft when it comes to playing 14.1 most of the balls pocketed are in the center pockets and the foot corner pockets, that's a square of 56"×56". And yes, 7fts have more clusters, but we're not talking about 7fts....are we? As far as difficulties go, a 7ft is a difficult table for most to play on as most players are novice players anyway.

Ask any snooker player if a 10ft (snooker) table is easier.

100% will say yes.

When you get that big the congestion vs playing area argument breaks down as the difficulty of the longer shots outweighs the advantage of the extra room to manoeuvre the cue ball.

 

[vjmehra]

No statement is correct for every player on the planet, but who's talking about every player on the planet anyway? Most players today have never even seen a 10' table, let alone played on one!

Absolutely, I was just using that to illustrate my point.

There is no way a 10ft table is easier than a 9ft (assuming that he pockets, cloth etc are the same). I was merely trying to say that the whole clusters argument has some basis on smaller tables, but when you get above 9ft it doesn’t really make sense anymore.

 

[realkingcobra]

Ask any snooker player if a 10ft (snooker) table is easier.

100% will say yes.

When you get that big the congestion vs playing area argument breaks down as the difficulty of the longer shots outweighs the advantage of the extra room to manoeuvre the cue ball.

Once again, the conversation wasn't about wether or not a 10' snooker table was easier to play on vs a 12' snooker table.

 

[vjmehra]

Once again, the conversation wasn't about wether or not a 10' snooker table was easier to play on vs a 12' snooker table.

Once again it was an illustrative example as most people don’t play pool on 10ft tables, however a lot play snooker on 12ft tables hence they are likely to be better placed to offer an opinion on table size than most and you will not find one that thinks he smaller table is harder.

 

[realkingcobra]

Once again it was an illustrative example as most people don’t play pool on 10ft tables, however a lot play snooker on 12ft tables hence they are likely to be better placed to offer an opinion on table size than most and you will not find one that thinks he smaller table is harder.

Who is saying a smaller table is harder?

 

[vjmehra]

Who is saying a smaller table is harder?

Er you did:

And for that matter, balls cluster less on a 10' table because they have MORE room to spread out, and that by itself makes a 10' easier to play on!!

Well if we’re being picky you said the larger table was easier...but it’s the same thing!