Tight Pocket Myths

[av84fun]

I love shattering myths and there are PLENTY relating to the game of pool. One such myth is the notion that the width of the pocket (between the points) is the main factor in determining how difficult a table plays.

The width is certainly a primary issue but is FAR from the main factor.

Other CRUCIAL factors are shelf depth, facing angle (or cut) and the material used for the facing pads.

But back to the width issue.

1. For a meaningful percentage of shots, pocket width is largely a non-issue. Place an ob on the head spot and the cb near a side pocket so you have a straight in shot that is perpendicular to the line between the points...i.e. you have the full width of the pocket facing you.

On such shots, you can set up a "barricade" with two balls closing the width down to, say, 3.5 inches and make the shot all day.

I have no data on how frequently we have shots where most of the pocket width is available but it is not a samll number.

2. Last night I measured the shelf depth of a Diamond Pro at JOB's in Nashville. At the deepest point, the front of the OB was on the line between the points and the facings were standard "pro cut" which look much more like this..I I... than this..<span style='font-size: 14pt'>^</span>...

So, once the ball DOES pass the points, it is going in the hole in the vast majority of cases.

Now, compare the above to my Ohlausen. It has 4.75 pockets..."buckets" right? But wait...there's more! It also has VERY deep shelves. When placed as far back as possible, the OB is a full 1/4 inch BEHIND the line between the posts.

In addition, the facings are cut MUCH less "straight" than the Diamond. So, what can and often DOES happen, is that you hit the facing and the ball just "pin balls" back and forth between the facings. It's call the Olhausen Rattle.

The net result is that while it is true that a very soft speeds, pocket width is beneficial to ball pocketing. But in MANY cases, force much stronger than pocket speed must be used on "down the rail" shots and other angles when hitting the facing is necessary.

On such shots my pockets spit shots out unless the are as "perfect" as would be required on narrower pockets.

The proof of the pudding is that I play on my table and on much narrower pocketed tables with some VERY top players and my "win ratio" is almost identical.

The moral of the story...if there is one...is that you need to pay CLOSE attention to shelf depth and facing angle before you conclude that the table will play loose and that you can use whatever pace you want from any angle.

Regards,
Jim

[1Time]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The moral of the story...if there is one...is that you need to pay CLOSE attention to shelf depth and facing angle before you conclude that the table will play loose and that you can use whatever pace you want from any angle.</div></div>
I like to check pockets for width, depth and angle by holding 2 balls in the jaws of a pocket, and by observing how well balls pocket when rolled with some pace.

[av84fun]

[quote=1Time I like to check pockets for width, depth and angle by holding 2 balls in the jaws of a pocket, and by observing how well balls pocket when rolled with some pace. [/quote]

Excellent ideas...along with determining whether the balls will sit on the shelf behind the line from point to point.

Regards,
Jim

[1Time]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like to check pockets for width, depth and angle by holding 2 balls in the jaws of a pocket, and by observing how well balls pocket when rolled with some pace. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Excellent ideas...along with determining whether the balls will sit on the shelf behind the line from point to point.
</div></div>

Each works well. I got the first idea from a guy I shot pool with in the 80's and the second from the movie "The Hustler".

[dr_dave]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I love shattering myths and there are PLENTY relating to the game of pool. One such myth is the notion that the width of the pocket (between the points) is the main factor in determining how difficult a table plays.

The width is certainly a primary issue but is FAR from the main factor.

Other CRUCIAL factors are shelf depth, facing angle (or cut) and the material used for the facing pads.</div></div>FYI, the four important pocket geometry factors (width, wall angle, shelf depth, and hole radius) are illustrated and analyzed in TP 3.6 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-6.pdf). The values used are the current WPA specs. FYI, my Novemeber '04 through January '05 articles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/index.html) show how the effective pocket size and target center vary with angle to the pocket, based on pocket geometry.

Regards,
Dave

[av84fun]

Thanks for the references. I am well aware of pocket dynamics but don't recall ever reading one of your pieces without learning something.

Before reviewing them, let me also add that:

1. Most cushion point height is slightly above the center of the balls and therefore when a ball is placed snugly against a point, a portion of the ball is actually tucked underneath the outward sloping cushion facing. In turn, the width of the ball at the points is slightly less than the actual diameter of the ball. Therefore, width measurement ought not to be conducted from point to point because the pocket is actually slightly wider (effectively) than the tip-to-tip measurment would imply.

2. Since pockets are as wide for the cue ball as the object ball, the player is more likely to scracth into wider pockets. That variable must be added to the overal equation of overall table difficulty.

THANKS!
Jim

[dr_dave]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for the references. I am well aware of pocket dynamics but don't recall ever reading one of your pieces without learning something.</div></div>Thank you. I aim to "swerve." /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. Most cushion point height is slightly above the center of the balls and therefore when a ball is placed snugly against a point, a portion of the ball is actually tucked underneath the outward sloping cushion facing. In turn, the width of the ball at the points is slightly less than the actual diameter of the ball. Therefore, width measurement ought not to be conducted from point to point because the pocket is actually slightly wider (effectively) than the tip-to-tip measurment would imply.</div></div>Excellent point. Thank you for pointing this out. I did not take this into account in my analysis with deflections off the points and rails. This will change the numbers slightly, but it shouldn't affect any of the trends. When I get some time, I'll make the necessary adjustments.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. Since pockets are as wide for the cue ball as the object ball, the player is more likely to scracth into wider pockets. That variable must be added to the overal equation of overall table difficulty.</div></div>Again, excellent point!

Regards,
Dave

[av84fun]

dr_dave

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thank you. I aim to "swerve." </div></div>

As the sign above the men's room "stand up" read...

WE AIM TO PLEASE....YOU AIM TOO...PLEASE.

(-:

[tjlmbklr]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's call the Olhausen Rattle.
</div></div>

Amen to that brother. I own a Olhausen that I paid good money to extend my rails to close my pockets 1/2". I was reluctant to do it beuse of the rattle from the pockets when they were factory. But one thing Iill say is knowing that I have less of a heart in the pocket I have to hit in order to make a clean drop slows me down; and that is my biggests issue I just rush every thing.

[071838]

You're dating yourself, AV8. That one's from my PARENT'S time! GF

[av84fun]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're dating yourself, AV8.</div></div>

No...I'm happily married! (-;

[Rackum_n_Crackum]

I'll second everything that was said in the original post....I have a 7' table with average with pockets, but REALLY deep shelf areas and is plays extremely tight.. Especially the side pockets..

The funny thing is that you really need to play it like a 8' or 9' table, slow and steady..

Scott