WPC and Pocket Size

[HittMan]

When hearing all this talk about pocket size, I am not sure where you are getting the suggested 4.5" pocket size at. Is it at the back of the pocket at the smallest part of the pocket or out front in the widest part of the pocket? On normal pockets (like me old Gold Crown has) if you add one extra shim on each side of the pocket they will be about 4.5" at the smallest part of the pocket. You would have to add three extra shims to each side to get them down to about 4.5" at the widest point.

I have to admit I wondered the same thing...so I accepted the earlier definition of the "mouth" of the pocket being the point at which the rail changes direction...then I went to my practice table (1953 Brunswick Sport King) and re-measured the pockets. They are 4.25" (by this method) at the mouth. I don't know what the rest of ya'll consider tight but down here in the south this is considered a very tight table (it's set up for one pocket). I had to shim the back of the rail and replace the Superspeed to get the good banking corners that can only be achieved with one shim. The inside dimensions of the pockets (where the cloth ends and covers the edge of the plastic cup) is 3.5". This is an included angle of 6 degrees.
I am regularly told the pockets are too tight for enjoyment...but I disagree...I am practicing for competition. This would be considered a "gaff" table in most pool rooms...in fact, it is a carbon copy (as best I can produce) of table #23 in CJ's (Dallas, TX) on Gaston St.
I am pretty sure there would be a change of faces in the winners circle of most tournaments if the tables were set up to this standard...because if you hit ANY rail going in (say...you did not allow for the diameter of the ball when shooting down the rail at the center of the hole) it may or may not even hang in the hole. I've had some very good players (good regional short stops..."A" players) get "pocket shocked" for varying adjustment periods (lengths of time) when first introduced to this table.
It is my opinion that tougher tables produce better players...but then again I think the handicap systems reduce competative spirit and encourage sandbagging as an easy way to win.
Just my opinion, you be the judge.

 

[cueman]

I have to admit I wondered the same thing...so I accepted the earlier definition of the "mouth" of the pocket being the point at which the rail changes direction...then I went to my practice table (1953 Brunswick Sport King) and re-measured the pockets. They are 4.25" (by this method) at the mouth. I don't know what the rest of ya'll consider tight but down here in the south this is considered a very tight table (it's set up for one pocket). I had to shim the back of the rail and replace the Superspeed to get the good banking corners that can only be achieved with one shim. The inside dimensions of the pockets (where the cloth ends and covers the edge of the plastic cup) is 3.5". This is an included angle of 6 degrees.
I am regularly told the pockets are too tight for enjoyment...but I disagree...I am practicing for competition. This would be considered a "gaff" table in most pool rooms...in fact, it is a carbon copy (as best I can produce) of table #23 in CJ's (Dallas, TX) on Gaston St.
I am pretty sure there would be a change of faces in the winners circle of most tournaments if the tables were set up to this standard...because if you hit ANY rail going in (say...you did not allow for the diameter of the ball when shooting down the rail at the center of the hole) it may or may not even hang in the hole. I've had some very good players (good regional short stops..."A" players) get "pocket shocked" for varying adjustment periods (lengths of time) when first introduced to this table.
It is my opinion that tougher tables produce better players...but then again I think the handicap systems reduce competative spirit and encourage sandbagging as an easy way to win.
Just my opinion, you be the judge.

I have looked at a lot of pockets and have not seen the pro's shooting on any that are 4.5" at the widest part of the pocket. That would mean the 2.25" balls would jam in the front of the pocket. On the pro cut tables they usually jam near the back of the pocket. On normal tables both balls will fall into the pocket side by side with just a little room to spare.

 

[BlowFish]

Is that called tripple shimmed?

..... On normal pockets (like me old Gold Crown has) if you add one extra shim on each side of the pocket they will be about 4.5" at the smallest part of the pocket. You would have to add three extra shims to each side to get them down to about 4.5" at the widest point.

I heard from people that this was done on the tables during the Manila Leg of the SMB Asian 9-Ball Tour.

Hope it's true that they will do this on WPC.

 

[sniper]

It's great to hear that they are gonna tighten the equipment up for the WPC, this is the biggest tournament of the year for any pro player and I'm sure they would all agree the tables played too loose last year. Hopefully Matchroom will do the same for the WPM, WPL, and the Mosconi Cup as well.

 

[stevelomako]

Glad to hear that they are going to tighten up the equipment.

All the people that have won the WPC have been unknown players that got lucky playing on sloppy tables.

This should assure that a great player will win.




Seriously now,

5 inches has been the standard forever and the best players are STILL the best players.

What the hell do people want from 9-ball???? It's a run-out game, always has been always will be.

 

[christopheradam]

Glad to hear that they are going to tighten up the equipment.

All the people that have won the WPC have been unknown players that got lucky playing on sloppy tables.

This should assure that a great player will win.




Seriously now,

5 inches has been the standard forever and the best players are STILL the best players.

What the hell do people want from 9-ball???? It's a run-out game, always has been always will be.

I finally went to BCA's web site to see what they have about pocket size.
http://www.bca-pool.com/play/tournaments/rules/equip.shtml

It says that the minimum for a corner pocket is 4 7/8's at the mouth(tip to tip where cushion changes direction) and max is 5 1/8 "

 

[LastTwo]

Glad to hear that they are going to tighten up the equipment.

All the people that have won the WPC have been unknown players that got lucky playing on sloppy tables.

This should assure that a great player will win.




Seriously now,

5 inches has been the standard forever and the best players are STILL the best players.

What the hell do people want from 9-ball???? It's a run-out game, always has been always will be.

A lesser player often beats a top player because he wins the lag and controlls the whole match. The lesser player wouldn't be able to do that on normal equipment. Ask any player who has competed in the WPC and they will tell you how many flukes have happened. If you don't see this then you are smoking some goooood shit.

 

[stevelomako]

A lesser player often beats a top player because he wins the lag and controlls the whole match. The lesser player wouldn't be able to do that on normal equipment. Ask any player who has competed in the WPC and they will tell you how many flukes have happened. If you don't see this then you are smoking some goooood shit.

Read what you wrote.......?????

They've played with 5 inch pockets FOREVER.

The old 10ft tables were 5" pockets too. The better players are ALWAYS the better players.

FLUKES????? What flukes??

Dude, you really don't know about pool.

 

[LastTwo]

Read what you wrote.......?????

They've played with 5 inch pockets FOREVER.

The old 10ft tables were 5" pockets too. The better players are ALWAYS the better players.

FLUKES????? What flukes??

Dude, you really don't know about pool.

I am simply quoting what some pros have said who actually played at the past WPC's. All I am doing is agreeing with their opinions. Danny Harriman even said the same thing not too long ago on this board. If I've got to choose between what some top players said and a no-name from Detroit, hmm, thats a tough one lol.

By the way, have you even watched any of the WPC matches over the last few years? There are tons of flukes, and there are tons of people who agree with me.

I know enough about pool to say that when a player hits a ball REALLY BAD, he doesn't deserve to get rewarded with making the shot. The pockets at the WPC are so big that if you shoot a ball in THE GENERAL DIRECTION of the pocket, you've made it. A game where it is possible to lose without ever getting a chance to play should not be made THAT EASY. And what did you mean by saying "you don't know about pool"? Since I have to same stance as many pros, I assume you think they don't know about pool either. You really are smoking some good stuff.

 

[SplicedPoints]

If you watch enough of the broadcast for the WPC, you'll see a lot of flukes. By fluke I mean shot that are sloppy and have no chance of going in on taugh tables wiggle in because the pockets are too big. 5 inches is just ridiculously large. There aren't even many phs I've been to that has 5 inch pockets. Shrink them. Better players can still run out and lesser players will run out less.

 

[pete lafond]

Read what you wrote.......?????

They've played with 5 inch pockets FOREVER.

The old 10ft tables were 5" pockets too. The better players are ALWAYS the better players.

FLUKES????? What flukes??

Dude, you really don't know about pool.

I think when equipment is to easy, lessor capable players have a better shot at winning. Big pockets and new cloth just allow too much fluke. Someone should come up with a material that takes the new cloth play out. How about a finish that can cause the slide to disappear.

Make the tables tough, but consistent. What I mean is no bad shim jobs.

 

[LastTwo]

I think when equipment is to easy, lessor capable players have a better shot at winning. Big pockets and new cloth just allow too much fluke. Someone should come up with a material that takes the new cloth play out. How about a finish that can cause the slide to disappear.

Make the tables tough, but consistent. What I mean is no bad shim jobs.

I don't want to see the tables made tough where players miss every other shot, I just want to see normal sized pockets that are cut properly.

 

[pete lafond]

I don't want to see the tables made tough where players miss every other shot, I just want to see normal sized pockets that are cut properly.

Right, not rediculous otherwise you'll end up with a game of safeties. I think that 4" is close to perfect. There is one table I play on that is shimmed but plays beautifully, I think it is triple shimmed. I'll measure it tomorrow to check the size.

You can run out on this table. I know that two balls do not fit in the opening at all. Table plays great though.

 

[magnum]

Have anyone raised this concern to the official WPC forum?

 

[stevelomako]

I am simply quoting what some pros have said who actually played at the past WPC's. All I am doing is agreeing with their opinions. Danny Harriman even said the same thing not too long ago on this board. If I've got to choose between what some top players said and a no-name from Detroit, hmm, thats a tough one lol.

By the way, have you even watched any of the WPC matches over the last few years? There are tons of flukes, and there are tons of people who agree with me.

I know enough about pool to say that when a player hits a ball REALLY BAD, he doesn't deserve to get rewarded with making the shot. The pockets at the WPC are so big that if you shoot a ball in THE GENERAL DIRECTION of the pocket, you've made it. A game where it is possible to lose without ever getting a chance to play should not be made THAT EASY. And what did you mean by saying "you don't know about pool"? Since I have to same stance as many pros, I assume you think they don't know about pool either. You really are smoking some good stuff.

The SAME great players have been winning tournaments forever, there are no flukes. Look at who wins, they all play great.

Do you want to bet that the pocket size has been 5" for at least 50 years no matter the size of the table????

Alex told me the tables were great, but I guess he's just one of the flukes you're talking about. How the hell can there be any flukes anyway? All the players at the WPC are champions.

You act like ANYBODY can run out on 5" pockets and put packages together.

Since you quote Danny how about if I quote Earl....."If people want to see players run out then how about making pockets 6" and we'll see who can run out the most...I like myself".


Remember, anyone that lose's says the pockets need to be tighter and the people that win say they're just fine.

I wonder if the round robin races to 5!!!!! have anything to do with what you're trying to say but the fact remains........................it's still champions that win all the big tournaments.

 

[pete lafond]

The SAME great players have been winning tournaments forever, there are no flukes. Look at who wins, they all play great.

Do you want to bet that the pocket size has been 5" for at least 50 years no matter the size of the table????

Alex told me the tables were great, but I guess he's just one of the flukes you're talking about. How the hell can there be any flukes anyway? All the players at the WPC are champions.

You act like ANYBODY can run out on 5" pockets and put packages together.

Since you quote Danny how about if I quote Earl....."If people want to see players run out then how about making pockets 6" and we'll see who can run out the most...I like myself".


Remember, anyone that lose's says the pockets need to be tighter and the people that win say they're just fine.

I wonder if the round robin races to 5!!!!! have anything to do with what you're trying to say but the fact remains........................it's still champions that win all the big tournaments.

Forgetting the fluke part of it. What is being said is lets make it more challenging. No one like to see slop or luck, lets reduce the chance of those things happening. I would like to see a nine ball call pocket. On breaks, it comes up.

 

[LastTwo]

The SAME great players have been winning tournaments forever, there are no flukes. Look at who wins, they all play great.

Do you want to bet that the pocket size has been 5" for at least 50 years no matter the size of the table????

Alex told me the tables were great, but I guess he's just one of the flukes you're talking about. How the hell can there be any flukes anyway? All the players at the WPC are champions.

You act like ANYBODY can run out on 5" pockets and put packages together.

Since you quote Danny how about if I quote Earl....."If people want to see players run out then how about making pockets 6" and we'll see who can run out the most...I like myself".


Remember, anyone that lose's says the pockets need to be tighter and the people that win say they're just fine.

I wonder if the round robin races to 5!!!!! have anything to do with what you're trying to say but the fact remains........................it's still champions that win all the big tournaments.

LOL Nowhere did I say that all of the past champions were made by flukes. I said that there were a ton of flukes that happened. People won games they shouldn't have. A 5 pack should have been cut short because the person running it made some incredibly sloppy shots, but the pocket still accepted it.

Sorry Steve but you are way outnumbered in this argument. What Earl said has no relevence to your argument. We are not arguing about whether people want to see players run out. My arguement is that the WPC's playing conditions are way too easy and that very often the lesser players win matches they are not supposed to win. I'll say it again, pool is the only game where you can lose and not even get a chance to play. Why make the game so easy that this becomes closer to that reality?

BTW, can u please give me a better argument for your side than your quote from Earl? Earl was simply making a point, hence the "why not" in his quote. You might want to find someone who actually agrees with you. No Alex doesn't count, he just won the last WPC lol, of course he likes the tables.

The TRUTH is, on tighter equipment the more skilled players rise to the top. On loose, easy equipment (which you obviously like) the lower-ranked players can beat the best players. That is called a fluke. I don't see why you can't comprehend that. There is no arguing what I just said, ask anyone.

 

[SplicedPoints]

If they make the pockets 6 inches wide, maybe I can play and even fluke myself a WPC title. Maybe not, average Joe Weekendbanger might win it.

 

[stevelomako]

I said that there were a ton of flukes that happened. People won games they shouldn't have. A 5 pack should have been cut short because the person running it made some incredibly sloppy shots, but the pocket still accepted it.

Sorry Steve but you are way outnumbered in this argument. What Earl said has no relevence to your argument. We are not arguing about whether people want to see players run out. My arguement is that the WPC's playing conditions are way too easy and that very often the lesser players win matches they are not supposed to win.

The TRUTH is, on tighter equipment the more skilled players rise to the top. On loose, easy equipment (which you obviously like) the lower-ranked players can beat the best players. That is called a fluke. I don't see why you can't comprehend that. There is no arguing what I just said, ask anyone.

Read what you said and give me some examples.

They play races to.....5.....in the round robin stage. Now that is reeeaalll sweet wouldn't you say.

A 5 pack should have been cut short...whose??

If you read what I said......really read it instead of wanting to argue you'd see that I said the best players will always win the big tournaments....no matter the pocket size, so why bitch about it and just make the races LONGER and let people run out like they should be able too playing 9 ball.

The TRUTH is, on any table the more skilled player rises to the top.

Just tell me what lessor players are in or have been in the WPC and I'll stop.


P.S.
Buddy Hall bitched about my tables in the other room after playing Richie Richeson. He was stuck 2 games on one of the Diamonds and made Richie switch to one of the Gold Crowns, got even and quit, he comes over and says to me "Whyyyy do people in Detroit like such tight pockets?".

The one pocket tables in the new place are just the same.

 

[LastTwo]

Read what you said and give me some examples.

They play races to.....5.....in the round robin stage. Now that is reeeaalll sweet wouldn't you say.

A 5 pack should have been cut short...whose??

If you read what I said......really read it instead of wanting to argue you'd see that I said the best players will always win the big tournaments....no matter the pocket size, so why bitch about it and just make the races LONGER and let people run out like they should be able too playing 9 ball.

The TRUTH is, on any table the more skilled player rises to the top.

Just tell me what lessor players are in or have been in the WPC and I'll stop.


P.S.
Buddy Hall bitched about my tables in the other room after playing Richie Richeson. He was stuck 2 games on one of the Diamonds and made Richie switch to one of the Gold Crowns, got even and quit, he comes over and says to me "Whyyyy do people in Detroit like such tight pockets?".

The one pocket tables in the new place are just the same.

Steve I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say. Also, I don't mean any disrespect when I poke fun at you, so please don't take offense. I mean it in a more playful manner, I don't hate someone just because we have an argument.

The race to 5 format in the early stages of the WPC is a round-robin format with alternate breaks. If they had longer races at such an early stage with so many players the tournament would take two weeks. The alternate break format for such a short race levels the playing field a little bit, but often the whole set can come down to whoever sees the one more often after the break, since the wingball is almost always going in on most of the tables. I believe in the last 32 it turns into a race to 9 winner break format, and the last 16 is a race to 11 winner breaks, and the finals a race to 17.

As for flukes, take the 2000 WPC for example. I think Morro Paez is a great guy and a great player also, but I watched 4 or 5 of his matches including his match in the finals. He was nervous and often he would hit a ball very badly but it would still go in. I don't think he deserved to get rewarded for those shots. He beat a ton of great players and the reason why is he was keeping control of the table when he shouldn't have.

Like I said, I don't want the pockets to be TIGHT, I just think they should be NORMAL sized. If you hit a ball bad, it shouldn't go in. If you hit it fairly well, then it should go in. The poolhall I play at there is this one table in the corner that has huge pockets. I played a tournament two weeks ago and had to play on that table, I literally missed 1 ball in a race to 7 and I didn't even feel like I was playing that good. The table accepted shots that I hit poorly, and I didn't deserve to get rewarded for hitting shots poorly. I don't like extremely tight equipment, I just prefer pockets that are a happy medium between tight and loose.