Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by tom simpso » Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:00:00



::Isn't there also a difference in the taper of the pocket, which makes Pro Cut
::more difficult? Note, if they open them up 1/16", they will be the same size as
::the billiard cut 4-9/16" + 4/16" = 4-13/16"
::

Quote:
::Tom Simpson writes: "They are planning to open up the side pockets a bit on the

::Pro Cut tables (maybe 1/16" or so)."
::
::
::Dick Moecia, fka poolcue
::http://ourworld.cs.com/poolhalloffame

No, he seemed to be saying that 142 degrees (at least on the
corner pockets is it. Wider or narrower, it's still 142. I
didn't ask about the specs on the side pockets, but I assume
they'll maintain whatever angle they are using now.

        tom simpson

 
 
 

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by Greg Mille » Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:00:00

tom simpson wrote
[...]

Quote:
> These terms refer to the two standard pocket sizes Diamond
> offers on their tables. Over time, they have settled on 142
> degrees as the best pocket shape (they experimented with 141
> and 143, and believe 142 offers a fair shape, ie, balls drop
> when they "should").

Exactly the BCA spec.

Quote:
> The Billiard Cut measures 4-13/16" across the corner pocket
> points, while the Pro Cut measures 4-9/16".

1/16" to 5/16" smaller than the minimum BCA spec.

Quote:
> They don't use pocket facings (shims).

Did he say why not?  I thought that the single shim facing was for the
protection of the wood at the rail ends.  Seems like many hard hit balls
could hammer the rail ends out of shape.  That could happen with the shim in
place, too, but it would take a little longer.
And did he mention shelf lengths?

 
 
 

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by Fred Agni » Fri, 18 Feb 2000 04:00:00

<snipped great info on Diamond tables>

Great stuff Tom.  Straight to the printer. This is what RSB is all about.

Regards,

Fred Agnir

 
 
 

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by tom simpso » Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:00:00

::
::>And BTW, I saw zero corner pocket shots (out of maybe a
::>thousand) that looked unfair. I played a lot, and did not
::>even notice that the tables were tight (except for the
::>sides). You could shoot hard into corner pockets and get
::>fair treatment. Just what you want.
::>
::>  tom simpson
::
::Tom.....Some of the players thought the tables played easier than last year.
::Was anything mentioned about making the corner pockets more "friendly," since
::last year?....Tom

Ed seemed to me to be saying they were now happy with the
corner pockets, after years of experimentation and feedback.

        tom simpson

 
 
 

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by tom simpso » Sat, 19 Feb 2000 04:00:00

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 14:01:25 GMT, "Kirk Douglass"
::
::Greg,
::Diamond doesn't use "traditional" pocket shims because they tend to make the
::pocket end of the rail *** play fake. Diamond offers a "One-pocket " cut
::table that is approximately 4-1/4" and after playing a 12+ hour session of
::one-pocket on one of these in Louisville, it's my favorite table on earth!
::Where the absence of shims is really noticed is when banking balls cross
::corner that are dangerously close to the pocket. I wouldn't consider
::shooting these shots on a "shimmed" table because the hardness of the shim
::will not let the ball bank true.  Also, when firing a ball down the rail it
::doesn't tend to "jaw" balls up like a shimmed rail would.
::
::As for protection for the wood at the rail ends, I know that Mark Masden
::(IMO, the best Diamond mechanic on earth) uses a thin piece of inner-tube
::type of *** to cap the rail *** and protect the wood. Maybe Tom can
::give us some insight on whether or not Ed Hagan also uses this practice.
::
::Kirk

Were the tables in the Action Room cut this way? I didn't
play on them, but they sure looked tight. Of course, nobody
was drilling balls into them, playing one-pocket.

Again, Ed told me Diamond does not use facings. That's about
all I know. Give him a call. He was thrilled that somebody
was interested.

        tom simpson

 
 
 

Pro-cut vs. Billiard-cut pockets

Post by Kirk Douglas » Sun, 20 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Were the tables in the Action Room cut this way? I didn't
> play on them, but they sure looked tight. Of course, nobody
> was drilling balls into them, playing one-pocket.

Tom,
I'm pretty sure all the tables in the action room were the one-pocket cut, I
know the three tables that I played on were.

Kirk

P.S. Did Cory ever return your call?