world championships 2012 - tight pockets??

[vmax4steve]

My memory not good enough to recall whether they were or were not dropping in 2010, so I went looking for some evidence..

The closest match I could find is this one: @ approx 4:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXjFagrA2CQ

Comparing it to Ali's red: @ approx 9:07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n-OE3-RURA

It seems to me that they both:
- hit the side cushion at the same distance from the pocket
- are traveling at about the same speed
- bobble twice, and drop

From that I would say the cloth/conditions/reaction of the tables were pretty much identical.

Not a good example nrage, Carter's red is further out from the cushion than Robertson's. I'm not saying that the pockets on the 2010 tables were tight, I'm saying that they were tighter than they are now or were in 2009.
I can't for the life of me see that striking the cue ball sweetly can make any difference to how the object ball drops into the pocket when the shot is hit at such a slow pace.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I had played that shot and the red touched the cushion in the same place at the same pace that it would have stayed out because I don't hit the cue ball as well as Carter does when playing a shot pocket weight.
All sorts of excuses are being made as to why these shots drop in but that one takes the biscuit, it really does.

The television tables are much tighter than your average club table pottr, but certainly not mine.

[pottr]

I can't for the life of me see that striking the cue ball sweetly can make any difference to how the object ball drops into the pocket when the shot is hit at such a slow pace.

The balls are equally round so any unintended rotation from the cueball will be imparted onto the object ball. If the ball then hits a surface it's trajectory could become distorted as a result. I'm no physics expert by a long way but it makes sense to me.

All sorts of excuses are being made as to why these shots drop in but that one takes the biscuit, it really does

It's not my excuse pal, I really couldn't care less. I know for a fact that it wouldn't matter how big the pockets are, players like you and me wouldn't be able to compete with the pros regardless.

The television tables are much tighter than your average club table pottr, but certainly not mine.

I play at the Atack Snooker Club which used to house former World no 17 Mick Price and has had many top players practice there. Mike Hallet, Marco Fu to name a pair.
3 of the 5 match tables down there are ridiculously tight but balls still go in when you're cueing well. Mick's old match table was set up to what he called 'Television specs' and plays very tight and very fast. If you're playing well on there then it's a dream, but if you're playing poorly it highlights how poor you actually are.

It never seems to phase someone as good as Mick though who makes the pockets look ridiculously big.

[nrage]

Not a good example nrage, Carter's red is further out from the cushion than Robertson's. I'm not saying that the pockets on the 2010 tables were tight, I'm saying that they were tighter than they are now or were in 2009.

I'd like to find a better example but I only had 20 mins to scan a bunch of youtube videos.

Yeah Carters red was further off the cushion (almost a full ball 2in vs less than 1/8th of a ball I would think) so we really need an almost identical example for some real "proof" one way or the other. It's possible Carters red would have dropped on the 2010 table.. the key point is how slow it was going and whether the bounce off the cushion jaw would take it over the pocket drop (cut in the table bed) or not..

I can't for the life of me see that striking the cue ball sweetly can make any difference to how the object ball drops into the pocket when the shot is hit at such a slow pace.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I had played that shot and the red touched the cushion in the same place at the same pace that it would have stayed out because I don't hit the cue ball as well as Carter does when playing a shot pocket weight.
All sorts of excuses are being made as to why these shots drop in but that one takes the biscuit, it really does.

I have to agree, I don't think how the white is struck could make a lot of difference on this type of shot. Transferred side spin is very minimal and would likely wear off even over a short distance at the power we're talking. If it was a harder shot then a badly struck white could be bouncing or spinning and that might make a difference to how it came off the cushion and entered the pocket jaw etc.

The television tables are much tighter than your average club table pottr, but certainly not mine.

There is one way to answer this Q, once and for all. If you've the time/inclination, it would be interesting to measure your club table and compare them to pottrs new Star table. Ideally if you could both produce a template of the cushion and pocket opening and the slate and pocket drop we could compare and contrast. Of course this would not take into account cloth differences, but it would give a solid place to start.

The other difficulty with making a template is that you've got to take into account whether the drop is sharp, or rounded, and the fact that cushions typically curve inwards as they go toward the bed of the table.. but, you could start by placing a piece of tracing paper onto the rails over the pocket and draw the cushion top outlines and pocket opening, then do the same on the bed of the table.

[pottr]

I can't see myself going to all that effort for a forum post buddy

I'm not getting a Star table, I'm getting an aristocrat.

The only way we'll ever know for sure is if we qualify for a TV tournament and that's not gonna happen this lifetime.
Mick Price told me the TV tables were tighter, he's played on them (fifteen years ago though). That's enough for me.

That Carter shot on that clip is suspicious though...

[The Statman]

Another thing in the age-old pocket size debate is how they look to television viewers.

At the Crucible, in the two-table set-up, the cameras are exceedingly close to the table, meaning they will be set at a much wider angle which will maximise the distortion of the view. At other venues, and indeed in the one-table set-up at Sheffield, a greater zoom (because the cameras are not quite so close) will minimise that distortion.

So there is a great deal of variation from this aspect.

(You can see these results easily by using a simple zoomable camera in a townscape. Take a photo on the widest angle setting along a street with high buildings each side. Then take 50 or so paces backward and take the same picture, zooming in so that the same photo is being taken. The verticals will be noticeably much less skewed.)

[pottr]

A thoughtful point of which I had not considered.

[Neil Taperell]

Not a good example nrage, Carter's red is further out from the cushion than Robertson's. I'm not saying that the pockets on the 2010 tables were tight, I'm saying that they were tighter than they are now or were in 2009.
I can't for the life of me see that striking the cue ball sweetly can make any difference to how the object ball drops into the pocket when the shot is hit at such a slow pace.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that if I had played that shot and the red touched the cushion in the same place at the same pace that it would have stayed out because I don't hit the cue ball as well as Carter does when playing a shot pocket weight.
All sorts of excuses are being made as to why these shots drop in but that one takes the biscuit, it really does.

The television tables are much tighter than your average club table pottr, but certainly not mine.

What template are your pockets cut to , to make them tighter than the TV Tables ?

Must be bloody hard to play on .

[throtts]

I have never measured the openings of the pockets on my Star ( which world snooker states "should be a ball and a half wide" ) but It is pro spec with vertical drop slate. I stipulated it must be the same as the TV pro spec, even down to the Star/Strachan logos being in the same place. My practise buddy played on it and did struggle, he said it was very tight and even noticed a big difference using my 1g Aramith tournament balls. If your cueing slightly out you will be found out, simple, and on shots I do miss by a tiny amount would be the ones that would drop on a club table very easy.

[vmax4steve]

There is one way to answer this Q, once and for all. If you've the time/inclination, it would be interesting to measure your club table and compare them to pottrs new Star table. Ideally if you could both produce a template of the cushion and pocket opening and the slate and pocket drop we could compare and contrast. Of course this would not take into account cloth differences, but it would give a solid place to start.

I can't be bothered to trawl through all the youtube footage of the 2010 WSC to try to find a shot close to the cushion that stayed out.
As regards to the tables that I play on I can tell you that about ten years ago the match table in our club had new cushions fitted, table is about seventy years old so it was about time, and the table fitter was told that the pockets were to stay the same size. He got out his pocket templates, IBSF ones, and couldn't fit them into the pocket openings as they were and promptly told the club steward that it couldn't be done but that he would use the old cushions as templates for the new ones so they remained as close as possible.
They in fact ended up a tiny bit bigger but still the IBSF pocket templates would not fit in the new pocket openings, but the club steward was pleased, and it was his teams home table. Now with the old pocket openings if you placed a dead set three ball plant on the cushion and hit it hard the pocket wouldn't take it, now it does but if a ball an inch off the cushion so much as touches the near jaw it would stay out.
The very biggest difference though is the middle pockets, no way you can slam the balls as hard as the pros do for even if you're spot on the pocket will just spit it out. That shot the pros play where they screw the brown off it's spot hard into the middle and onto the baulk cushion and back down the table, can't be done. Tried it even with a dead set plant, pocket won't take it.

On the pockets size thread Terry states that the WBPSA templates cannot be sourced by anyone outside of the WPBSA, so amateurs cannot set their tables to pro spec. He also states that he has recieved drawings of the WPBSA templates and after comparing them to his IBSF templates that they are in fact bigger across the pocket opening and the fall of the slate is further forward.
There are of course some club tables that have ridiculously oversized pockets that are probably not fitted to any official template and it is these that the tv tables are compared to.

[nrage]

I can't be bothered to trawl through all the youtube footage of the 2010 WSC to try to find a shot close to the cushion that stayed out.
As regards to the tables that I play on I can tell you that about ten years ago the match table in our club had new cushions fitted, table is about seventy years old so it was about time, and the table fitter was told that the pockets were to stay the same size. He got out his pocket templates, IBSF ones, and couldn't fit them into the pocket openings as they were and promptly told the club steward that it couldn't be done but that he would use the old cushions as templates for the new ones so they remained as close as possible.
They in fact ended up a tiny bit bigger but still the IBSF pocket templates would not fit in the new pocket openings, but the club steward was pleased, and it was his teams home table. Now with the old pocket openings if you placed a dead set three ball plant on the cushion and hit it hard the pocket wouldn't take it, now it does but if a ball an inch off the cushion so much as touches the near jaw it would stay out.
The very biggest difference though is the middle pockets, no way you can slam the balls as hard as the pros do for even if you're spot on the pocket will just spit it out. That shot the pros play where they screw the brown off it's spot hard into the middle and onto the baulk cushion and back down the table, can't be done. Tried it even with a dead set plant, pocket won't take it.

On the pockets size thread Terry states that the WBPSA templates cannot be sourced by anyone outside of the WPBSA, so amateurs cannot set their tables to pro spec. He also states that he has recieved drawings of the WPBSA templates and after comparing them to his IBSF templates that they are in fact bigger across the pocket opening and the fall of the slate is further forward.
There are of course some club tables that have ridiculously oversized pockets that are probably not fitted to any official template and it is these that the tv tables are compared to.

So.. what you're basically saying that the one 70 year old club table at your club has tighter than normal pockets - and/or there is some other reason it spits balls back out (like loose pocket leather etc). Actually, it sounds like the cut of the pocket might be way back into the pocket such that high-speed balls just bounce back out off the pocket leather without dropping.

The real Q is, how does it compare to the tables the pros were using in each decade.. I mean, that's the heart of the age-old argument isn't it, have pockets been getting looser and looser or is your club table an aberration?

Looking at it from another angle entirely you could reason that the pockets today have to be looser than they were because the modern style of game requires it. Not because players are worse or better, but because players play shots now which require the ball enter the pocket at much higher speeds. These shots are only possible if the pocket will accept a high-speed ball. Ultimately, IMO, this is a good thing as being able to play these shots makes the game more exciting, allows for more variation in shot choice and allows for players to play shots which are just a bit more "special". As a consequence however, it might also mean the pockets accept balls which are not perfectly placed, but traveling at slower speeds.

Of course, all that is just speculation.. we actually need some hard evidence in the form of measurements/templates for your club table and/or various pro tables (if we can find them) thru the years and today.

I know that Frames in Coulsden has a modern Star table and an old high-quality table and both have modern cloth on them.. I've not played on the older table, I wonder how it plays in comparison to the Star table. Neil might have played on both.. or could get some measurements for interest sake.

[vmax4steve]

So.. what you're basically saying that the one 70 year old club table at your club has tighter than normal pockets - and/or there is some other reason it spits balls back out (like loose pocket leather etc). Actually, it sounds like the cut of the pocket might be way back into the pocket such that high-speed balls just bounce back out off the pocket leather without dropping.

The real Q is, how does it compare to the tables the pros were using in each decade.. I mean, that's the heart of the age-old argument isn't it, have pockets been getting looser and looser or is your club table an aberration?

Looking at it from another angle entirely you could reason that the pockets today have to be looser than they were because the modern style of game requires it. Not because players are worse or better, but because players play shots now which require the ball enter the pocket at much higher speeds. These shots are only possible if the pocket will accept a high-speed ball. Ultimately, IMO, this is a good thing as being able to play these shots makes the game more exciting, allows for more variation in shot choice and allows for players to play shots which are just a bit more "special". As a consequence however, it might also mean the pockets accept balls which are not perfectly placed, but traveling at slower speeds.

What I've said is that there is no way that Carter's red would have dropped on any of the eleven tables in the different clubs that I play on in my league. Not all of them are as tight as my home table but none are as easy as the pro tables. The newest table in our league is a Star table that was introduced in 2010, I have yet to play on it as I've worked nights for that fixture, but I have been told that it is as tight as our home table so to my mind there is a difference between the size pockets that can be cut according to IBSF and WPBSA templates.
As regards to what shots can be played on tv tables, if you learned to play snooker on tables that are as tight as my club table, then the style of snooker that Judd Trump plays wouldn't be possible as you would soon learn that the pockets wouldn't take it so you would stop trying. You could still have the ability to play those shots as the cue action needed would have been learned for deep screw shots into open pockets, but once a ball was near a cushion then it would have to be pocket weight with something special on the cue ball or safety.
Just how special is a deep screw shot into a big pocket and getting that banana effect on the cue ball compared to one played at medium pace into a tight pocket with running side off two cushions for perfect position ?
This is what the BBC have been doing IMO, dumbing down the game for the benefit of those who don't or can't appreciate the special skills that the players of the past had to utilise.

[nrage]

What I've said is that there is no way that Carter's red would have dropped on any of the eleven tables in the different clubs that I play on in my league.

It's an interesting opinion to be sure .. I'd like to see some sort of actual "proof" in the form of measurements or what have you.

[vmax4steve]

I have never measured the openings of the pockets on my Star ( which world snooker states "should be a ball and a half wide" ) but It is pro spec with vertical drop slate. I stipulated it must be the same as the TV pro spec, even down to the Star/Strachan logos being in the same place. My practise buddy played on it and did struggle, he said it was very tight and even noticed a big difference using my 1g Aramith tournament balls. If your cueing slightly out you will be found out, simple, and on shots I do miss by a tiny amount would be the ones that would drop on a club table very easy.

It can't be pro spec because the WPBSA will not allow their templates to be used for non pro events or for private tables. You simply can't get them so you have to use the IBSF ones which are tighter and therefore make people believe that the pros are soooooo much better than you are, which of course they are, but not to the extent that when they hit the near jaw the ball drops and yours doesn't.

[throtts]

Yes, vmax and I remember the other thread with Terry, its very hard to get the exact measurement off anyone hence me stating, "ball and half wide". If your assumptions are correct??, then at least I know if I get consistent centurys then I am doing bloody well..

[Nat5guns]

The star tables in this years WC were tight, very tight compared to what the vast majority of people play on. I dont know why people insist that they are generous, they simply aren't. The reason people moan about the size is because the object ball can slide and drop in sometimes. But that has nothing to do with the pockets, and even with the sliding cloth the tables are very hard to play on if you aren't cueing straight. It makes me chuckle when i hear people saying that the pockets on tv are buckets, they really have no concept of reality.