Why not make side pockets smaller?

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.)
 

itsfroze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

pdcue

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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. :rolleyes:

Leave him alone froze. Just send him a PM explaining how to spell Snooker.

Dale
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
You could make them 2-1/2" and I'd still scratch the CB on the break.

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!!!!!
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.)

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.
 

mike8or9

Registered
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.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
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.)

Earl suggested to get rid of the side pockets...
 

mantis99

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.)

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.
 

Magog30

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.

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.
 

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
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.
 

hustlefinger

Registered User
Silver Member
The Xtreme Pool Challenge 10ft table has 4.5 inch side pockets.

XPC sidepocket1.jpg
 
Top