Official Pocket Size

[nideKer]

moglet,

blue line indicate a start of the slate drop.

[moglet]

nideKer,

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

[nideKer]

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...

[Terry Davidson]

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

[saddler79]

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.

[moglet]

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.

[saddler79]

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.

[moglet]

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.

[nideKer]

moglet it`s a great information!

Big thx! :snooker:

[moglet]

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).

[nideKer]

!!! Ooooo!!! I think I have understood!!!! thanks a lot moglet and all! :snooker:

[alex_5525]

lifes in the pocket baby, lifes in the bag..... dont let your problems, become a drag

sorry just needed to get that off my shoulders

[moglet]

nideKer,

Your photo does not look as if the rubber was undercut, the photos of mine in the other thread are of a set taken from a domestic table with amateur pockets, these were undercut.

This diagram might help to explain the degree and effect of undercutting the rubber:

[nideKer]

Thanks again moglet!

The professional pockets do not have any undercut so there is no template for doing the undercut

hmmm, here You said about rails or rubber?
In the information on a forum I have received understanding about pockets, templates and undercutting but - If You said above, about rubber - I have a photo of the rail of table on which pass the Championship of the Europe - and there rubber is undercutted.

Or simply, I have got confused in terminology... Hope You`ll help me!

PS: Or on my photo it`s just cut of the rubber , and on your photo - it`s undercut?

[moglet]

nideKer,

The drawings I put up were intended as a guide only, I notice the attachments are missing no doubt due to recent upgrades of the forum. The professional pockets do not have any undercut so there is no template for doing the undercut, amateur pockets can be undercut so there is a secondary template that sets the amount of undercut. I suspect that most fitters would set the undercut by eye and experience and not rely on the templates, I can add very little to what Geoff Large has posted elsewhere, perhaps he could give you the method he uses for doing the undercuts if you want yours this way.

I have put some images of a steel block rail "end" in this thread:
http://www.thesnookerforum.com/board...ad.php?t=16314