5 x 10 tables

[Celtic]

I'm against amateurs having to play on tables that are a different overall size than what pros play on simply because it's not consistent enough. 4.5" pockets rather than 4" is within reason but I would like to see 4" pockets available, too.

4.5 inch pockets are fine for amateur pool but 8-ball at the pro level they simply do not cut it. We need to get the game tightened up. Dennis Orcullo never missed a ball and never played a safe in a 8-ball match on a 9-foot with 4 1/8th inch pockets and lost the match, that shows very clearly that 9-foots cut like that are simply not tough enough.

What I am REALLY tempted to do at this point is buy a 10-foot Diamond, take it straight to RKC (Glen) and get him to cut 4 inch pockets for it with the same cut as the old Fatboy rails, lend the table to TAR for free, AND put up some of my own money into a prize fund for a 8-ball match between SVB and one of the top Asian pros who has shown extremely high 8-ball speed.

I KNOW the game of 8-ball would show REALLY well with those conditions. Everyone always worries about tight tables because players don't shoot and duck too much, and that DOES happen in rotation pool. BUT in 8-ball players simply cannot duck like that, there are simply not that many safety options and the game of 8-ball more often then not forces you to shoot at tough shots. 8-ball is a lot like snooker if/when you play it on proper conditions, it is a run out game but under the right conditions the runouts do NOT have to be easy, they should not be.

The game of 8-ball played under those conditions would demand amazing shape play, excellent potting ability, smart strategy, nerves of steel, a great break. It would demand a complete game in every way and any one thing a player is missing from there game would hurt them.

That is what pool needs, it needs to be a ultimate test, and no game we have seen in pool has shown enough of a challenge after a good break. This is part of the reason it is boring to watch, there is no tension from shot to shot like their is in snooker. You never know when a snooker player might miss and they get tested constantly and it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Instead in pool you get an announcer saying after a good break "well, that is a road map, he is out". That right there makes people wonder why they are bothering to watch if the result is such a forgone conclusion. People want to watch touchy tough pots with the game on the line, they want to watch tester 10 foot putts and critical drives down a tight 18th fairway.

Rotation pool cannot do what 8-ball can, in rotation pool you tighten the tables and the players will duck.

Do 8-ball on a super tough table and it will FORCE the players to shoot and perform to the peak of their ability or lose. You have some times when safeties will be played, but these times players are now moving their suits and adding a 1-pocket type of aspect to the game which rotation pool also finds it impossible to create due to the fact both players are actually shooting at the same balls.

Chinese 8-ball has the right idea. They are as close to getting it right that we have seen to date for "pool". Still, I think America should make a game that is their own and I think that the 10-foot diamonds we are already seeing around with tight pockets are the answer to a rebirth for pool, in the game the general public recognize.

 

[junkbond]

In the early sixties, I played a lot of snooker on ten-foot tables.
Currently, my home table is a nine-foot GC V. When I replace it, I will go with a ten-foot table with 4-1/4" pockets. Best eight-ball ever.

 

[leto1776]

I see people saying this but they always seem to be just repeating what they heard someone else say. I've never seen any old films with a table that looked anywhere near 4" pockets. They look like 5". Do you have some actual documentation or visual proof that the old straight pool championships (not carom or balk line) were played on either 10' tables, tables with 4" pockets, or both?

I'm sure there's plenty of documentation on it. Mosconi used to say that compared to the 10' tables of his day, the 9' were like playing on the kids' table.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

I used to think the pros should play on the same size tables as amateurs. I changed my mind. The pros need to be challenged on every shot to add suspense. How interesting would pro golf be if they played on the same length courses with easy setups that amateurs play on? It'd be stupid.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Johnnyt]

I see people saying this but they always seem to be just repeating what they heard someone else say. I've never seen any old films with a table that looked anywhere near 4" pockets. They look like 5". Do you have some actual documentation or visual proof that the old straight pool championships (not carom or balk line) were played on either 10' tables, tables with 4" pockets, or both?

You're right, 10' tables with 4" pockets were around. but they were far from the norm. Most 10' tables were at least 5". Johnnyt

 

[sjm]

You're right, 10' tables with 4" pockets were around. but they were far from the norm. Most 10' tables were at least 5". Johnnyt

Correct. The ten footers typically had 5 inch pockets in the old days.

Last year at the Derby, ten footers with tightish pockets were used in the 14.1 challenge. In five days of qualifying attempts, just one player managed to run 100, and it was a snooker pro named Pettman. The list of those who tried and failed to run 100, despite plenty of attempts, included Niels Feijen, Darren Appleton, Dennis Orcullo, Max Eberle, Ralf Souquet, Mika Immonen, and Huidji See. Mosconi, Greenleaf and Crane would have had to work hard to run 100 on that equipment, even though each would have been capable.

Ten ball, however, is a game that has almost no tradition at all, and it's a game that with rare exception, is played in pro events in America only. For this reason, I'm OK with ten ball on the ten footer as a novelty.

The ten footer is not likely to catch on. It won't fit in many basements and it's just bad business at the poolroom. It is too difficult for even lower tier pros and fans won't enjoy watching the pros being humbled, as was the case last year at the 14.1 challenge.

 

[Lesh]

I do not think it is practical to shoot a full on tournament on 10 footers. It's just plain stupid and I dont really care what people think about people like me that do not want to see yet another size of table added to the menagerie of tables out there in cue sports. We need to just settle on one single table and a standard for that table and just stick to it. From pocket size to the angles on the rails and materials acceptable for the rails and even the speed of the dang cloth versus the type of rail you use on that table.

It's not rocket science, but there are soooooooooooooooooo many competing ideologies. None of that will happen until we get a recognize governing body for all of cue sports that is international which sanctions all tournaments.

So no.... 10 footers are neat, kinda like Carom tables (please do not light me up for bashing Carom.... cuz Im not... its just not POCKET billiards) or playing Chinese 8-ball on a snooker table. But let's just keep it at that, a nice diversion. Not mainstream pocket billiards.

Lesh

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

Mosconi, Greenleaf and Crane

I find this easy pockets back then mentality, the tables were easier etc... quite comical. During the IPT all I heard was the best modern players crying for faster cloth. They did not like a little bit of the old days to much for straight pool heh...

These players you mentioned above has probably played more pool on a 5x10 than the new players more than likely will ever do. It is not really a standard today as it was in the above players early careers. I see this era as being one where pool rooms can't even operate with 4 1/2 x 9s without many of them closing down. Watch any of the Mort Luby interviews with Crane, Mosconi, Caras, and you will see, the 10 foot table was the standard for them until later on.

Those gentlemen also did not have much say in what they played on. Brunswick did. And Brunswick could sell more and fit more 9 foot tables into pool halls opening up all around the country in those days than they could 10 footers.

Record runs on a 5x10 for the gentlemen you listed is:

Mosconi 309
Greenleaf 276
Crane tying Mosconi at 309.

Greenleaf and Mosconi's 5x10 results posted below along with their records and achievements from Billiards Digest.

But even if a player did beat said high runs, are they beating the high run while also being a 14-15 time world champion? Did they run 526 on a 8 foot table while also doing 309 on a 10 footer? Did they dominate pool in their own era with pretty much ease?

Even if so and so run 800 balls, it does not make him the best player in the sum of it all.

 

[Slasher]

What distance does he make the great majority of his shots from? Three to four feet.

But I'm not dissing O'Sullivan's pocketing ability. He can often make shots from 11 feet. He's just got that ability. Other snooker players- not so much.

Way off the mark here I'm afraid, Ronnie is not renowned for his long game but many others are. You are under estimating how difficult balls become when they are 6" or less from the cushion especially into pro cut 3-1/4" pockets, touch the cush and they pretty much don't go. You really need to spend some time on a tournament table to get the feel for how tough it is.
As for 5x10's I would love to see it but if there became a pile of money in the game you may not like the future non US domination that would occur.

 

[Cornerman]

I've never seen one in person, nor played on one, but I've noticed they are occasionally used for money matches...based on this are they ever likely to become the 'norm'?

Will pro tournaments begin using them?

Will amateur tournaments ever use them?

Are they ever really likely to catch on?

I'm just curious as over here in the UK I've never heard of anyone playing on one, as far as I'm aware its only the US that has them (so far).

Do you understand that they were the norm at one time? The answer will make more sense if you knew that.

 

[Cornerman]

You're right, 10' tables with 4" pockets were around. but they were far from the norm. Most 10' tables were at least 5". Johnnyt

This is correct. But, as I always say, let's not let facts get in the way of a good wrong fantasy.

And let's face it, most AZers simply haven't been in the game long enough, but they know everything about pool, snooker, ....


Freddie <~~~ and they get praised here

 

[Rillix]

Will amateur tournaments ever use them?

Xtremepoolchallenge located in Cocoa Beach FL runs weekly amateur matches on Friday and Saturday. Have two 1945 5'x10' Brunswick centennials with 4/one quarter corner pockets and 4/five eights side pockets. Also have a quality HD live stream which can be watched for free.

 

[vjmehra]

Do you understand that they were the norm at one time? The answer will make more sense if you knew that.

No I didn't know that, is that definitely the case?

The majority of people here seem to suggest they were around, but never the norm.