Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official Pocket Size

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Some pocket Stuff

    There seem to be so many threads asking questions about pocket templates, this looks to be the best coverage for the general topic.

    Theses are dimensional drawings of the professional pockets checked against 2005 and 2006 Crucible tables:

    removed

    This photo is of the IBSF template in a WPBSA cut pocket, a B&SCC template will not go into the same pocket and is as different as the IBSF comparison, but bigger:

    removed

    This is a diagram of three templates overlaid, confusing for the IBSF pair, I think the finer green trace of the drop and undercut of the IBSF set (what's it doing there?) can be ignored unless someone has seen a Wiraka M1 set to this template. The finer blue trace indicates the amount of undercut on the B&SCC pocket. The top blue drop curve is what you might expect in a club:

    removed

    These are the middle pockets, remember the IBSF and B&SCC are both undercut unlike the WPBSA. Again, the IBSF drop looks too far into the pocket?:

    removed

    If you would like any information or drawings please PM me for IBSF, B&SCC, Riley/Rex Williams or WPBSA (Please say which year).
    Last edited by moglet; 31st August 2009, 12:04 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      moglet it`s a great information!

      Big thx!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by nideKer View Post
        moglet it`s a great information!

        Big thx!
        Hi nideKer,

        Beware, it is not quite as simple as that, things may change, as they appear to have already, and, now that Star tables have the contract.

        The templates and "drawings" are for a finished pocket, it requires further skill to make cutting templates to allow for cloth thickness and slight distortion of the rubber under tension.

        Comment


        • #49
          Gonna have a measure of the pockets at my local club the next time I play me thinks. I would challenge the best professionals in the world to make a 120+ on these tables. Even a century would be a massive achievement. Tightest tables ive played on by a mile.

          Nice to now what they roughly should be now though.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by saddler79 View Post
            Gonna have a measure of the pockets at my local club the next time I play me thinks. I would challenge the best professionals in the world to make a 120+ on these tables. Even a century would be a massive achievement. Tightest tables ive played on by a mile.

            Nice to now what they roughly should be now though.
            Perhaps, but also perhaps not, the set of the jaws is critical, tiny alterations in the profile (0.25mm here or there) can make really big differences in the way the pocket behaves when the pockets are "closed up" from earlier templates. The "original" WPBSA pockets, since 2000, were entirely fair if applied properly, yes the pocket was difficult from the midline, the pink spot, but the pocket would accept a ball down the cushion if it was within 2 or 3mm of the cushion and parallel to it at pace. This is what has changed, the pockets are not balanced now and certainly not as close to a "normal" standard, as they could and should be if an established standard was seen as important. Recently we have seen pockets on tournament tables that are ridiculously easy from the body of the table and yet impossible down the cushion, we see the reverse of course but what we don't see is consistent pocket response - there is a great deal more to it than just the type, quality and "age" (usually its only been on for a few hours before pundits claim the response has changed) of the cushion cloth.

            I guess that until sufficient professional players stand up and voice their opinions this ludicrous situation will continue. Most pros can pot directly to the centre of a pocket, without fail, "impossibly" tight pockets are always unreasonable and can make the players look silly especially when they are faced with other variables that are still unresolved.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by moglet View Post
              Perhaps, but also perhaps not, the set of the jaws is critical, tiny alterations in the profile (0.25mm here or there) can make really big differences in the way the pocket behaves when the pockets are "closed up" from earlier templates. The "original" WPBSA pockets, since 2000, were entirely fair if applied properly, yes the pocket was difficult from the midline, the pink spot, but the pocket would accept a ball down the cushion if it was within 2 or 3mm of the cushion and parallel to it at pace. This is what has changed, the pockets are not balanced now and certainly not as close to a "normal" standard, as they could and should be if an established standard was seen as important. Recently we have seen pockets on tournament tables that are ridiculously easy from the body of the table and yet impossible down the cushion, we see the reverse of course but what we don't see is consistent pocket response - there is a great deal more to it than just the type, quality and "age" (usually its only been on for a few hours before pundits claim the response has changed) of the cushion cloth.

              I guess that until sufficient professional players stand up and voice their opinions this ludicrous situation will continue. Most pros can pot directly to the centre of a pocket, without fail, "impossibly" tight pockets are always unreasonable and can make the players look silly especially when they are faced with other variables that are still unresolved.
              Good response moglet. I'm not sure whether its just the age and condition of the tables I play on or irregular pockets but the recent tournament tables I have seen on the TV are far more forgiving than these (i.e even catching a fair chunk of the near jaw and still dropping). Its IMPOSSIBLE to pot a ball down the cushion on the tables I play on at anything other than drop in weight. Even a black sent slightly onto the far jaw will not drop. They may be inconsistent but i'd take a tournament table any day compared. My breaks would go through the roof

              I think its only fair to point out though that whilst the tables I play on run fast and true I suspect they are old and need some attention. The main factor here could be that the jaws have become less receptive over years of use rather than an issue with pocket size or profile but its nice to see a thread discussing it.

              Comment


              • #52
                I have a set of IBSF templates and I'm pretty sure moglet has both IBSF and B&SCC plus engineered drawings of the WPBSA.

                To show you how bad it is, moglet and I exchanged pictures of our IBSF templates and it certainly appeared his (an earlier version) were a different size than mine. Amazing!

                Also, the templates do help but they definitely do not answer all the questions. Most people say automatically the pockets should be 3-1/2in and on my templates they are around that size at about 83.5mm, so slight smaller however they don't really tell you where to measure that width.

                For a full sized table with 2-1/16in balls I'd recommend about 3-1/2in at the centre of the fall, not the top apex. This will produce reasonable sized pocket which will take a medium paced shot along the cushio. Middle pockets across the middle points of the fall are approx 4-1/2in and this will allow the pink to be 'slammed' into the middle pocket as the pros are able to do on their tables and also allows those sharply oblique middle shots to a degree

                Terry
                Terry Davidson
                IBSF Master Coach & Examiner

                Comment


                • #53
                  hmmmm...

                  moglet how i understood drawings of the pockets which You shown - it`s nearly coincide with WPBSA cut?

                  Recently ive made a "template" from pockets on table in our club. And now I can compare both drawings. (watch attached pictures. black and blue lines - "my" template (84 mm width on corner jaw) red lines drawing by moglet attach (80.3 mm width on corner jaw))

                  In my club - jaws wider than in your drawing on nearly 3.6 mm, and have another curve. But in this club play only amateurs... ))

                  I am really disappointed that for snooker pockets are not present the uniform standard like in pool or russian billiard...
                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by nideKer; 3rd August 2009, 03:04 PM. Reason: more precise of the dimension

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    nideKer,

                    Interesting, your blue lines for the drop or fall - do these indicate where the ball will just stay "up"?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      moglet,

                      blue line indicate a start of the slate drop.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        nideKer,

                        I've put a B&SCC main template set onto your drawings, the corner is a near perfect match, the middles don't conform to any of the three types. The B&SCC are in green.

                        Your drops would be unusual on a UK table, to get to the WPBSA template from a club type table the slate is normally built out with a suitable resin and reformed with a much sharper edge.

                        Last edited by moglet; 30th August 2009, 11:50 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          sorry for the offtop, but what is B&SCC? I can`t find any information about this organisation.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by nideKer View Post
                            sorry for the offtop, but what is B&SCC? I can`t find any information about this organisation.
                            Billiards & Snooker Control Council, apparently went bankrupt but used to be the Governing Body:

                            B&SCCBadge.jpg

                            http://www.eaba.co.uk/mags/bqr/1992/04/editorial.html

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The B&SCC function has been taken over by the IBSF for international side and I guess the EASB for England as the B&SCC used to run England too. The EASB and your association would report to the IBSF on snooker and English billiards matters

                              Terry
                              Terry Davidson
                              IBSF Master Coach & Examiner

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Hi everyone,

                                I am having my cushions and at the same time pocket size redone. (sorry Terry!)
                                Using Moglets and nideKer's templates (thanks guys) I have managed to work out what is required for corner pockets based on a pocket width of 82mm (3 1/5"). For this I will use B = 82mm (pocket width at drop) A = 120mm (width between start of curve between cushions). The distance between A and B is around 40mm.
                                With these dimensions I'm hoping to have close to tournament pockets. (rather than the very forgiving "home" pockets I have now on which the cushions are not parallel but open and pots go in even if missed on near or far jaws).
                                Please let me know if I've gone horribly wrong here with the calculations!

                                However I was hoping someone could help me out with the middle pockets.
                                I read that the standard is 4 inches, but is that from where the cushions meet the pocket drop?, or from the very end of the cushions?

                                On some tables I think this is irrelevent because both are the same, but on the one I use (a riley) the cushions meet the drop before the cushion ends, so the width here is wider then at the end of the cushions.

                                Sorry if it all sounds confusing, and thanks in advance

                                Note added: For middles I ended up using 95mm (3 3/4") for A , and 190mm (7.5") for B (distance between curve start on cushions either side of pocket). The curve is quite narrow..more like a tennis ball rather than a dinner plate. Conclusion...tough...brush the near knuckle and theres no chance of it going in...but very satisfying nailing the pink.
                                Last edited by tcollick; 24th February 2010, 04:55 PM. Reason: update
                                http://frameball.com

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X