14.1 Easier on a 10' than a 9'?

Johnnyt said:

Since most agree that playing 14.1 on a 7' table is harder than playing it on an9' because of so many clusters I got to thinking that a 10' table could be easier than a 9' for 14.1. My thinking is good 14.1 players rarely need to shoot long shots back to the head of the table. Probably 85% of their shots are in the foot corners and about 10% in the sides, plus there is more room to get around balls and more of an angle to the sides. Anyone agree? Johnnyt
__________________

Click to expand...

JT,
I've played an awful lot of 14.1 on a 10 footer (with average pockets); the rest of my play is usually on a very tight 9 footer (much tighter pockets). I think that it is MUCH more difficult on a 10 footer.

A professional that I play with has a high run of 188 on a 9 footer, and 108 on the looser 10 footer - he thinks the 108 is a far greater achievement.

On the 10 footer even a small miss in position can leave you an extremely tough or even impossible shot to make and recover position. Try it, I'm fairly certain you will agree. It is possible that someone at the elite level might disagree if their ball pocketing prowess makes the 10 footer no challenge for them; but I would guess they will not (John Schmidt might have weighed in on this subject before).

I've only played 14.1 a few times on a Valley 7 footer, and found it tremendously easier than on the 9 footer - the clusters are very easy to manage as the demands for insurance balls are quite low since you can usually pocket anything you can see. I'm a little mystified that anyone would think that the game is not harder with each step larger in table size - such a person must pocket and position balls significantly better than the average pro...if you can find a good player that thinks this I would be a bit surprised (but then I thought this computer thing was just a fad). JMO.

Johnnyt said:

Since most agree that playing 14.1 on a 7' table is harder than playing it on an9' because of so many clusters I got to thinking that a 10' table could be easier than a 9' for 14.1. My thinking is good 14.1 players rarely need to shoot long shots back to the head of the table. Probably 85% of their shots are in the foot corners and about 10% in the sides, plus there is more room to get around balls and more of an angle to the sides. Anyone agree? Johnnyt
__________________

Click to expand...

In a word, NO.

Lets forget about a 7' table in the equation due to it being 2 feet smaller than a 9'. An 8' table is quite a bit easier for 14.1 than a 9' table, using that as a comparison the 9' table would be quite a bit easier than the 10'.

One thing that is overlooked is how much harder it is to reach the break shots and how much further the break shot will be from the pocket. This is the main reason the Schmidt thinks a 7 ' table is easy for straight pool, he can reach every shot.

How about you shoot a break shot on a 10 footer and the cue ball ends up in the kitchen, you really have to come with a shot it that case. On an 7' or 8', table it becomes a fairly easy shot.

10' tables a brutal.

I don't think most people believe that playing straight pool on a 7 foot table is more difficult than a 9 foot table. The few times I have tried I thought in was much easier.

Bill

I'd have to agree that the 7' table would be easier, because with the smaller size, all 6 pockets would be in play, and staying around the foot of the table wouldn't be as important. I don't think clusters would matter as much as long as the balls are opening up good.

Good question

It is much easier to play on smaller tables when you play on a 9' table all the time. Playing straight on a 7' table is easier b/c of the reach & straight pool players play for cue ball control which leads to short shots. On a 7' table, there is nothing but short shots.
On the other hand playing on a 10' table is like playing on a football field. It is super hard. (reach & long shots).
It is much easier for a player who plays on a 9' table all the time to move down to smaller tables But it is very hard for a player who plays on small tables all the time to move up. I have seen this over & over the years. They are lost when they have to play on a bigger table.

14-1StraightMan said:

It is much easier to play on smaller tables when you play on a 9' table all the time. Playing straight on a 7' table is easier b/c of the reach & straight pool players play for cue ball control which leads to short shots. On a 7' table, there is nothing but short shots.
On the other hand playing on a 10' table is like playing on a football field. It is super hard. (reach & long shots).
It is much easier for a player who plays on a 9' table all the time to move down to smaller tables But it is very hard for a player who plays on small tables all the time to move up. I have seen this over & over the years. They are lost when they have to play on a bigger table.

Click to expand...

14-1StraightMan:

Be careful with this synopsis. While it is true that the shot distances on a 7-footer are less than a 9-footer, don't forget that the clustering increases. And, remember that 7-footers come from barbox country -- which means non-standard cue balls and non-standard-sized side pockets. (On a barbox, the side pockets are EXACTLY the same size as the corner pockets, while on an 8-/9-/10-footer, the side pockets tend to be larger [wider aperture] than the corner pockets, as per standards.)

The first time I played on a barbox 8-ball league system, I though I'd string racks from the get-go. Instead, I had my head handed to me by experienced barbox players, because they knew how to handle the "traps" of the underestimated side pockets (especially when approached from an angle), as well as the pitfalls of that non-standard cue ball. The Dynamo bar tables, which use that heavyweight cue ball (6 & 7/8 ounces), were especially troublesome for me. You even *touch* that rock, and it takes off. And, try and draw it -- you have to smash it like Mike Massey to get any kind of draw out of it.

Anyway, while the differences between 8-footers, 9-footers, and 10-footers are due purely to horizontal slate real estate, the 7-footers tend to be a class of their own, primarily because of barbox country -- i.e. the differences mentioned above. This definitely applies to 14.1, especially when the 7-footer in question is a Valley or a Dynamo table.

Now, having said all this -- which size table would I say is the most difficult to execute a big run on? 10-footer. Primarily because of that exponential shot distance. The first time I played on one (I remember it had the cigarette ashtrays molded into the corner pockets' "catcher's mitt" right from the Brunswick factory), I recall the same shock I experienced when playing on a snooker table for the first time. That distance is hard to fade!

Hope this is helpful!
-Sean

i don't know.... yesterday i had a high-ball break on my 8' table, hit it with a little follow, the balls opened up like a lotus flower in a flood and i had NO SHOTS. not one cluster and no shots.... every table has it's peculiarities and adjustments are necessary for optimum play.

Thanks

sfleinen said:

14-1StraightMan:

Be careful with this synopsis. While it is true that the shot distances on a 7-footer are less than a 9-footer, don't forget that the clustering increases. And, remember that 7-footers come from barbox country -- which means non-standard cue balls and non-standard-sized side pockets.

Hope this is helpful!
-Sean

Click to expand...

Your point is well taken. I can only speak for myself and for my own observations of other players. I have no trouble moving down to smaller tables. The only bar box tables that I play on here in TX. (BCA State Team & Single Tours.) are the tables that they play out in Vegas with. Those tables play great & have good balls with a Red Circle cue balls and Simonis cloth.
As for more clustering on a 7' table. Yes, that is true but a good straight pool player is very use to breaking out clusters & moving balls around the table in positions for shots to come.
I do respect your opinion.
Thanks:
Mike

I grew up playing straight pool on a 1945 Brunswick Centennial 10' gully table, and I won't say it's easier, but I prefer it.

sfleinen said:

The first time I played on a barbox 8-ball league system, I though I'd string racks from the get-go. Instead, I had my head handed to me by experienced barbox players, because they knew how to handle the "traps" of the underestimated side pockets (especially when approached from an angle), as well as the pitfalls of that non-standard cue ball. The Dynamo bar tables, which use that heavyweight cue ball (6 & 7/8 ounces), were especially troublesome for me. You even *touch* that rock, and it takes off. And, try and draw it -- you have to smash it like Mike Massey to get any kind of draw out of it.

Click to expand...

I like to think of pool and "bar" pool as two different games - like baseball and softball - similar, but different. I also play in a bar league and have also had my a$$ handed to me by players who have probably never played on a table that they didn't have to insert money into. And for as hard as it is to draw one of those cue balls, it's even harder - and quite funny to watch - someone try to jump one of them.

7' vs. 8' vs. 9' vs 10'

From my experience, the game automatically gets tougher (skill wise. meaning stroke and envisionment) as the size of the table increases. As an example, I play in a 14.1 league once a week on 9' tables. I, also, play a friend 14.1 on a bar box once a week. Since Mid-August, my hi-runs on the 9' table have been 59, 43, 42, 37, 35, 33, and a slew of 20's. On the 7' they have been 72, 68 unf., 58 unf., 75 unf, 92, 100 out, and many 50's and 40's. With my eyes not as sharp as they used to be (diabetes) and a failing in my confidence, it is very obvious, without question as to which tables play the most difficult. Of course, the fact is how many players, today, have played on or have even seen a 10' pocket table. I've been playing over 40 years and the only time I've seen or played on one was at Tally Jenkins backroom in Pottsville, PA. (note that at Tally's, you had to be careful when you placed your stick down 'cause of all the holes and cracks in the wooden floor. Straight through to the basement!) So throw the 10' tables out of any comparison. And then you also have brands of tables that just play easier. I mean a standard Valley Bar Box plays much tougher than a Great American and a Brunswick plays tougher/truer than a Gandy or Olhausen. And the Diamonds probably supersede them all in any size.
Winston has a good analogy of the Baseball/Softball thing. But, beware as someone else eluded to, don't think you are gaining an advantage on a "player" in moving him to a different size table. The "player" will still find his way to "play" for the win under any condition. After all no matter the size of playing area, bounce off the rails, cut of the pocket or rules of the game. Pool is Pool.

Since 10' tables were what were used in the good old days when there were so many great long runs, I'd rather see the 10' back into action.
I had a 10' Anniversary that I used to play on, and I've been playing alot of 14.1 on a 9' Diamond lately, and can honestly say that I miss the 10'.
Maybe it has something to do with getting run over so much by the Diamond owner....hmmm

Ha ha Shane! The Tuna runs everyone over!

I will agree with most here that a 10' table would be more difficult. My main reasoning is that both position play and shot-making come more into play. Having to go longer distances and shooting longer shots (hard to have a high run without encountering a few of these) makes it more demanding. The rack will also be a smaller target when you have non-optimal break balls.

Are 10 foot tables made today and if so how much more (in cost) than a 9 footer? The only 10 footers I've seen were used for snooker.

What was the pocket size on the old 10 footers? I've heard 4 inches is that true? I did see a 10 footer (for pool) manufactured in the early 1900's, but the pockets seemed big (certainly bigger than 4 3/4).

Bar table 14.1 is far easier than a 9 footer, But 8 ball is easier on 9 footers (haven't played on 8 footers) than on a bar table because of the obstacles.

Does anyone practice on a 10 footer it seems that if practice on a 9 footer makes a bar table play easier than a 10 footer would make 9 foot tables easier.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

When the world championships were contested on 5 x 10 tables, the race in the world championships was typically to 125. When they switched to 4 1/2 x 9, the race was changed to 150. That's because it's easier on a 4 1/2 x 9.