8ft -vs- 9ft

mullyman

mullyman

Hung Like a Gnat!
Silver Member
I've heard people say before "Mosconi ran 526 but I'm pretty sure it was on an 8ft table" Which makes me wonder if someone like myself would up his average ball count if I was to switch to playing on an 8ft table? Of course it wouldn't be a dramatic raise like jumping from say 8 to 25 balls on average, because I'm fairly certain the techniques and knowledge of the game overrides table size, but would there be a slight increase?
MULLY
 
Last edited:
IMO running those balls on an 8' table ( given the same pocket sizes, since the 8' tables tend to have more forgiving pockets) can actually be more difficult.

Aside from the few long shots that we might encounter during a rack, the remainder of the balls (still 2 1/4 inch) lie together in a much tighter half table area. That makes for more congestion and steeper angle cuts.
 
There are a few things to consider about when thinking about the difference between running balls on a 8ft or 9ft table :)

1. As 3andstop has mentioned, shooting on a smaller table means there is a little less table space to enjoy, which means that the traffic is a little more conjested on an 8ft'er than it would be on a 9ft.

2. Playing shape requires that little bit more precision than a 9ft because of the smaller shooting area that a player has got to work with, especially if you like to stick to runing balls at the rack end of the table.

3. Alot more shots can be reached a little easier on an 8ft, than they can be on a 9ft.

4. Also as 3andstop has mentioned, if the pockets on an 8ft are the same size as on a 9ft, then they can be a bit more generous, but they can also be a bit greedy too because if you play a shot bad, there is the slightly bigger change of the CB getting sucked into the pocket, just the same as any OB, especially if playing a shot with a laps of concentration, miscalculation, or plain bad luck.

5. Break shots require a little more care and concentration on an 8ft because there is always the increased chance of hitting a break shot too hard, and either winding up with no shot or scratching.

These are just a few things that come to mind when shooting on an 8ft compared to a 9ft, but alot of what I have mentioned are not always a problem as it's more a question of how well a player is able to adapt to the varying table sizes :)

Willie
 
hi

i used to wonder myself which is harder. the 8ft is absolutely easier. furthermore i was in the ob1 booth this year on a diamond bartable.i was curious if i could run 100. i walked in first shot 830 am ,dress clothes ,balls were even kinda dirty,no glove and not my obcue.a different obcue and ran 181 . bob jewett sweated most of it and my ob1 guys saw whole thing.
at first i said to myself thats gotta be like running 400.
actually it was easier than 9ft because i could reach every break ball easy and all the shots werte almost unmissable.
a 4by 8 is even easier.
trust me on 4by8 big pockets i think i would run over 500 within a 2 year period.
in closing i promise 4by8 is easier and if someone thinks different they can take a week on 9ft and ill take week on 4by8 and see who runs the most.jmho
 
What about a 4x8 with tight pockets? I play on a Kim Steel with tight pockets and find it a challenge to run balls. If you dust a rail, the ball will not go in. I have watched numerous DVDs and see these guys and gals dust rails that would not go on my table.
 
john schmidt said:
i used to wonder myself which is harder. the 8ft is absolutely easier. furthermore i was in the ob1 booth this year on a diamond bartable.i was curious if i could run 100. i walked in first shot 830 am ,dress clothes ,balls were even kinda dirty,no glove and not my obcue.a different obcue and ran 181 . bob jewett sweated most of it and my ob1 guys saw whole thing.
at first i said to myself thats gotta be like running 400.
actually it was easier than 9ft because i could reach every break ball easy and all the shots werte almost unmissable.
a 4by 8 is even easier.
trust me on 4by8 big pockets i think i would run over 500 within a 2 year period.
in closing i promise 4by8 is easier and if someone thinks different they can take a week on 9ft and ill take week on 4by8 and see who runs the most.jmho
Click to expand...

Well, John, the only difference I see here is that you are already a top notch straight pool player. I'm wondering about us guys that are still learning the ins and outs of the game. Do you think we'd see any improvement on an 8 footer?
MULLY
 
Pushout said:
526. Amazing feat, on an 8 foot or a 9 foot.
Click to expand...

Amen to that :thumbup:

It's kinda hard to believe though that with the amount of high calibre pool players that are around nowadays, that no-one has yet beaten Mosconi's record run, after all, records are made to be broken :)

Willie
 
TheWizard said:
Amen to that :thumbup:

It's kinda hard to believe though that with the amount of high calibre pool players that are around nowadays, that no-one has yet beaten Mosconi's record run, after all, records are made to be broken :)

Willie
Click to expand...


I would say that is because there aren't as many playing straight pool today. In my opinion, if straight pool was the game of choice today the record would have already been broken.
MULLY
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that Mully :thumbup:

It kinda disappoints me that Straight Pool isn't played more often at high level, alot of top pro are missing out on a vast education of knowledge from playing straight pool and other games like One Pocket, which in my eyes is much better than shooting 8ball, 9ball or 10ball all the time :)

FWIW, if I had the finances and was in the US, I would happily set up a pro Straight Pool tour, but I would have slightly longer matches, where instead of playing to 125 or 150, I would have the matches to 150 in early rounds, 175 in the Semi-Finals and 200 in the Finals, this way it gives players a better chance of being able to get loose and to run some balls :)

Willie
 
TheWizard said:
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that Mully :thumbup:

It kinda disappoints me that Straight Pool isn't played more often at high level, alot of top pro are missing out on a vast education of knowledge from playing straight pool and other games like One Pocket, which in my eyes is much better than shooting 8ball, 9ball or 10ball all the time :)

FWIW, if I had the finances and was in the US, I would happily set up a pro Straight Pool tour, but I would have slightly longer matches, where instead of playing to 125 or 150, I would have the matches to 150 in early rounds, 175 in the Semi-Finals and 200 in the Finals, this way it gives players a better chance of being able to get loose and to run some balls :)

Willie
Click to expand...


In the old days didn't they have tournaments where they would run to like 12 to 1500 over the course of a few days? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

Yeah, I think the record would have been broken already. I mean if you really think about it, Schmidt has a run of over 400, Danny Harriman says on his DVD that his personal best was 312 (?). The only thing stopping either of these guys from beating the 526 is the mental ability to stay focused that long and/or the possibility that they get hooked after a break shot. In Danny's DVD he misses a break shot that I bet he could kick himself for. If he hadn't had that little mental breakdown he'd probably still be running them as I type this. hehe!!
MULLY
 
Yeah :) lol, some of the world title Straigh Pool matches were played to 3,000 and were played over 2 week periods and they would normally be played on "Blocks" over that 2 week period, but I think that they only played on 4/5 days of each week, I remember it was mentioned in an old BCA rule book or something like that :)

Yes, concentration and focus have always been the most important factors to being able to make big runs, especially in the 2, 3, 400+ mark and in my eyes, any run over 100 in Straight Pool is an achievement because of the level of concentration and focus needed :)

With there being so many short rack games being around nowadays, it's no wonder that alot of players don't aren't reaching their fullest potential, and I believe that this is because they have the same level of concentration that some of the top straight pool players would have :)

I wish that I had my own table because I would quite happily play nothing but straight pool for the next 2 years and give a damn good try at Mosconi's High run record myself, just for the fun of it :)

Willie
 
Before we undervalue Mosconi's great run, I'll note that I'm of the opinion that if Mosconi had played on Simonis 860 cloth, he may have been capable of a 1,000 ball run.

In the good old days, the balls simply didn't break the way they do today on break shots. As the break shots (both beginning of rack and during the rack) had to be hit harder, more of them were missed in the good old days. That's why, back then, anybody who consistently averaged more than 10 balls per inning (with safeties counting as zero) was a contender for the world championship. I know, because I attended most of the World 14.1 championships from 1975-86.
 
Yeah, now that I think about it I guess technology has improved so many facets of the game. I can't imagine what it would be like playing on that old carpet with mud balls.
MULLY
 
I've played straight pool on the heavier barbox type cloth and I think it's a better cloth to use for shooting straight pool than using the modern day faster cloths :)

In fact, I ran 104 (Unfinished) on a 9ft Sam K-Steel with the heavier wool barbox type cloth on it :)

I don't think the cloth has made as much a difference, more so the billiard balls used now are made of pheonolic resin, instead of clay or ivory like they were in Mosconi's era, plus the cusion rubber has been improved over the years too to be cut to a bit more precision and to a bit more density so that the cusions don't lose bounce so easily, like they may have done years ago :)

Equipment does play a part yes, shooting straight pool on simonis makes running balls, a fraction easier because as it's been mentioned, the cloth is naturally faster and so the racks open easier, which does take a small fraction of original the skill level away, but certainly not to the point that it takes anything away from anyone's achievements or high runs in straight pool, because as I said before, to be run 100+ is very much and always will be an achievement in itself and to those that do it consistently, hats off to them :thumbup:

Willie
 
Last edited:
TheWizard said:
Amen to that :thumbup:

It's kinda hard to believe though that with the amount of high calibre pool players that are around nowadays, that no-one has yet beaten Mosconi's record run, after all, records are made to be broken :)

Willie
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it has been broken just not in public. Most famous is Mike Eufemia running 625.

Anyone else notice that Eufemia's run is Mosconi's run backwards?

526
625
 
Cameron Smith said:
As I understand it, it has been broken just not in public. Most famous is Mike Eufemia running 625.
Click to expand...

Also, by Babe Cranfield, in Syracuse, New York. Living only 60 miles from there for a good many years, I heard about this quite a bit. I understand it was documented by witnesses. Never got to talk to Babe about it, though. I did see him play three-cushion a few times.
 
john schmidt said:
i used to wonder myself which is harder. the 8ft is absolutely easier. furthermore i was in the ob1 booth this year on a diamond bartable.i was curious if i could run 100. i walked in first shot 830 am ,dress clothes ,balls were even kinda dirty,no glove and not my obcue.a different obcue and ran 181 . bob jewett sweated most of it and my ob1 guys saw whole thing.
at first i said to myself thats gotta be like running 400.
actually it was easier than 9ft because i could reach every break ball easy and all the shots werte almost unmissable.
a 4by 8 is even easier.
trust me on 4by8 big pockets i think i would run over 500 within a 2 year period.
in closing i promise 4by8 is easier and if someone thinks different they can take a week on 9ft and ill take week on 4by8 and see who runs the most.jmho
Click to expand...

Well, as a newbie to 14.1, I might argue with that assessment....for me.

I practice on my 8' Olhausen with pretty tight pockets. It could be that I'm alone and maybe don't give it my all, but I've had better runs on a 9 footer than my 8 footer.

I've run only 30 balls on a GCII (scratched on 31 !!:angry: )and a few 20 somethings on my Olhausen, so take any "advice" I have with a BIG grain of salt.:wink: Last night I ran 11 on one of the IPT tables...tight, tight, tight pockets!

Anyway, there is some difference between pros and us amateurs and how the equipment affects us, imho.

fwiw,

Jeff Livingston

John...Is that Sara Evans on your avatar?
 
Last edited:
Now there's an interesting question that is related to the thread, what table size were these new record runs meant to have been made on? :)

I didn't hear anything of Babe Cranfield breaking Mosconi's 526, but it wouldn't suprise me if he did :)

As reguards Mike Eufernia's 625, any record run with no witnesses, just screams out the question, "Did they really break the high run or are they just saying it?" :)

I guess sometimes one may never really know for sure :)

Willie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top