We all seem to focus on the size of corner pockets when trying to make a table play tougher. Side pockets are traditionally 1/2 an inch wider than corner pockets but I am suggesting that all 6 pocket openings should be the same size at 4.5 inches. Not as many balls would go in the side making the table play tougher. At the same time, maybe that would take some of the focus off making the corner pockets too small for pool. (You shouldn't have to baby a well struck ball down the rail to make it go in.)
Why not make side pockets smaller?
- Thread starter Magog30
- Start date
What if we make all the pocket sizes at the points so small balls won't fit in at all
then people would have to jump every ball into the pocket.
Hey, and while we're at it we could just change the name also, to Basket Pool.
Leave him alone froze. Just send him a PM explaining how to spell Snooker.
Dale
That would be great! I try not to use them already - getting ready for Earl lol
Yeah, dont you hate when that happens? At least the only time it happens to me is when I break. Oh, also when I am cutting a ball close to the rail with draw. Sometimes with top too. Maybe three rail position shots also. I wish I could sink object balls as well as I can the QB.
WTF???? No wonder I have a hard time running more than 1 ball at a time.
Lets get rid of side pockets!!!!!
The issue with the side pockets is that as soon as you go a bit off from straight in, the opening gets a lot smaller. At some point, you would not be able to soot balls in the side even from a pretty straight angle to them. Plus I like the fact that you can cheat the pocket a bit more so you can send the cueball to one side of the table or the other from a straight shot.
Why ? ... Because we would need "bigger balls" to attempt those shots. That's why.
The side pockets didn't make any difference to Keith. He fired balls in the side 90 mph
from some unbelievable angles, shots that 999 out of a 1000 guys wouldn't even go
for. And he always split the wicket and just kept that fast pace going. He broke a lot of
his opponents down just by his uncanny knack with the side pockets not to mention
what the rest of his game did to them.
from some unbelievable angles, shots that 999 out of a 1000 guys wouldn't even go
for. And he always split the wicket and just kept that fast pace going. He broke a lot of
his opponents down just by his uncanny knack with the side pockets not to mention
what the rest of his game did to them.
Earl suggested to get rid of the side pockets...
Takes away too many shots. Corner pockets are made smaller to an extent to force more accuracy, but making the side pockets smaller decreases the angle that the shot can even be made at, taking away the ability to make many shots.
Would be alot easier to just make 3 3/4 in balls!
Yes, it would take away the ability to make many shots in the side. I am wondering if that would be a good thing. Forcing the player to get position for a corner pocket more often with less little side pocket tap ins. I hope Dr. Dave or Bob Jewett will offer their opinion on this.
I think there were sound reasons in making them different sizes, and that's a formula
almost nobody has messed with for centuries.
But I think one exception is valley barboxes.
I believe valley sides are the same as the corners or even a bit smaller.
It's not a change I care for, but in general I'm against the whole
"let's fu*ck with the equipment to make pool harder!" movement.
almost nobody has messed with for centuries.
But I think one exception is valley barboxes.
I believe valley sides are the same as the corners or even a bit smaller.
It's not a change I care for, but in general I'm against the whole
"let's fu*ck with the equipment to make pool harder!" movement.
I am side pocket retarded, so I am with earl:
Brick them biatches up.
Brick them biatches up.
The Xtreme Pool Challenge 10ft table has 4.5 inch side pockets.
This is where we differ.
I would hope for a another 6 pockets
...and 4 cue balls.
MOAR! MOAR!
