speaking of odd questions . . . here is one!

ShootingArts

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Silver Member
Someone else has a thread asking about what seemed to be extra pockets on a table and that spurs me to ask a question I have been thinking about awhile and I would appreciate as many opinions as possible.

Snooker tables at 6x12 have six pockets. 5x10 and 4.5x9 pool tables have six pockets. Now we are down to 3.5x7 tables and it seems that they are the table of the future if not even smaller tables simply because of the cost of square footage in a business.

After all of that preamble, do we have too many pockets on a seven foot table? Somewhere in the past I have seen an antique with only four pockets and that seems to me like it would be enough for a 3.5x7 table. Make things more challenging while fitting in a smaller space. Even the once a year events in big venues find it far easier to move seven foot tables in and out than to deal with nine footers.

What do you think? Would a Diamond style seven footer with only corner pockets be more challenging and more fun to play on than one with six pockets?

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Someone else has a thread asking about what seemed to be extra pockets on a table and that spurs me to ask a question I have been thinking about awhile and I would appreciate as many opinions as possible.

Snooker tables at 6x12 have six pockets. 5x10 and 4.5x9 pool tables have six pockets. Now we are down to 3.5x7 tables and it seems that they are the table of the future if not even smaller tables simply because of the cost of square footage in a business.

After all of that preamble, do we have too many pockets on a seven foot table? Somewhere in the past I have seen an antique with only four pockets and that seems to me like it would be enough for a 3.5x7 table. Make things more challenging while fitting in a smaller space. Even the once a year events in big venues find it far easier to move seven foot tables in and out than to deal with nine footers.

What do you think? Would a Diamond style seven footer with only corner pockets be more challenging and more fun to play on than one with six pockets?

Hu
Click to expand...


It's an interesting question since one can argue that pool doesn't have an official table size. Although we are accustomed to playing on 9-foot tables, many amateur events are played on 7-foot and even Willie Mosconi's run of 526 was on an 8-foot table.

I would venture to say no to four pockets. I think the proper solution to the issue is what is currently employed at the BCA event which is played on 7-foot Diamond tables - just tighten them up. Pocket size makes a huge difference and probably has a greater impact on how "difficult" a table plays than table size. Also, there's only about a billion 6-pocket tables out there and Diamonds only last about a million years so I doubt any dramatic changes are going to happen in our lifetime.
 
Interesting thread Hu. I think that the game has evolved in to what it is by changing equipment and games over time. Yes it would make sense to me that this move would make the game more interesting to some probably the next generation. Some old schoolers might have a problem with change but old schoolers pass away and evolution go's on. I have seen many different sized and shaped tables and the none seem to be as popular as what we use now. That does not mean that this game or equipment will remain what it is, history clearly proves that it never stays the same. I look at the games played just a hundred years ago (18.2 balk line) and I say to myself what was this era thinking? Nurse shots for hours by the same player. Yes it took skill, yes it took thinking but WTF. You can already see it happening with 9ball, there is a move towards 10 ball and I can only imagine what players 100 years from now might say about our games. Smaller table, less pockets, smaller balls our imagination and the players will decide and it should be interesting to be a part of.
 
Last edited:
How about 3x6 Bar Tables with six pockets, such as those in my friend's two Bars in San Francisco ?

They have six HUGE pockets which act like "ball magnets" and that's exactly the way he wants it ...
The bigger the pockets, the faster he gets paid for the next game @$1.50 a pop ...

I can't imagine any Bar Owners wanting less (or smaller) pockets on their tables ...

However, it would be a real challenge to play on a 3.5x7 with only 4 pockets ...
 
my rough thoughts

Str8PoolPlayer said:
How about 3x6 Bar Tables with six pockets, such as those in my friend's two Bars in San Francisco ?

They have six HUGE pockets which act like "ball magnets" and that's exactly the way he wants it ...
The bigger the pockets, the faster he gets paid for the next game @$1.50 a pop ...

I can't imagine any Bar Owners wanting less (or smaller) pockets on their tables ...

However, it would be a real challenge to play on a 3.5x7 with only 4 pockets ...
Click to expand...

Six smaller pocket works also but my real interest is in taking away some of the short shots to increase the difficulty in the game. No more cross side banks into those wide open side pockets is the biggest deal in my mind plus you have to play different shape fairly often with those two pockets missing.

I'm looking out for the room owners though, there is more to my thoughts. It isn't very practical to play 14.1 on a seven footer, just too crowded. However I think that 9.1 would be far more practical and of course with ten balls, ten ball would be the other game of choice. Have to think a little to figure out a game to resemble eight ball but something could probably be worked out. With 10 balls the games would go faster and folks would be feeding the tables more. I could see starting the transition by having some tables with only ten balls at a cheaper price per rack. I think this is a good idea even with current tables. Why not have a few dedicated 9 or 10 ball tables if you have a room full of bar tables? I hate six ball and that is what they usually do with the extra balls on a bar table around here.

Just been scratching my head for a few years as to how to make pool halls viable. Right now most of them have to be on real estate that is paid for or in low rent districts to be able to afford the square footage. We are going to have a hard time going mainstream with pool halls or getting youngsters involved more until we can afford square footage in nicer areas. Or at least these are my thoughts.

Hu
 
mind expanding on that?

LAlouie said:
Four pockets is passable for 9/10 ball, and worthless for 14.1.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you at all but would you mind expanding on why you think it is worthless for 14.1 or more worthless than seven foot tables are to begin with? It definitely takes away the side pocket break shots, are there other issues that apply only to 14.1? Just trying to get a feel for how such tables would be received.

Thanks,
Hu
 
LAlouie said:
Four pockets is passable for 9/10 ball, and worthless for 14.1.
Click to expand...

14.1 will always be played on larger equipment. Part of the fascination with 14.1 has to do with statistics and those statistics are somewhat meaningless once you fall outside the realm of "traditional" equipment so I think we're safe for now.
 
ShootingArts said:
Someone else has a thread asking about what seemed to be extra pockets on a table and that spurs me to ask a question I have been thinking about awhile and I would appreciate as many opinions as possible.

Snooker tables at 6x12 have six pockets. 5x10 and 4.5x9 pool tables have six pockets. Now we are down to 3.5x7 tables and it seems that they are the table of the future if not even smaller tables simply because of the cost of square footage in a business.

After all of that preamble, do we have too many pockets on a seven foot table? Somewhere in the past I have seen an antique with only four pockets and that seems to me like it would be enough for a 3.5x7 table. Make things more challenging while fitting in a smaller space. Even the once a year events in big venues find it far easier to move seven foot tables in and out than to deal with nine footers.

What do you think? Would a Diamond style seven footer with only corner pockets be more challenging and more fun to play on than one with six pockets?

Hu
Click to expand...


i think if you take pockets off of the table you might want to consider taking some of the balls away too
 
All I can say is that regardless of whether it's playable (or fun), if any serious effort were made to try 4-pocket tables... I hope that effort fails utterly.

One of the things that holds pool back is a lack of standardization, and this would just make things worse. I'm not sure how making the game harder really translates to more fun anyway. I have a blast running out. I only wish I'd gotten to the point where it's so routine that I get bored. If you take away the sides people are going to get out less and probably just get frustrated. If you really want the challenge, just pretend the pockets aren't there and balls that accidentally go in there don't count.
 
I think if you're gonna make a 4 pocket table then you are creating a new game and not the traditional 8-9-10 ball type games.
 
CreeDo said:
All I can say is that regardless of whether it's playable (or fun), if any serious effort were made to try 4-pocket tables... I hope that effort fails utterly.

One of the things that holds pool back is a lack of standardization, and this would just make things worse. I'm not sure how making the game harder really translates to more fun anyway. I have a blast running out. I only wish I'd gotten to the point where it's so routine that I get bored. If you take away the sides people are going to get out less and probably just get frustrated. If you really want the challenge, just pretend the pockets aren't there and balls that accidentally go in there don't count.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with this logic.
 
I like the idea. No need for a whole new 7' table. All you need are pocket blocks for the side pockets like the blocks used to convert 10' pool tables to 3-cushion tables. The other way is to have one-piece long rails made for it. Johnnyt
 
no problem at all

poolplayer2093 said:
i only read the firs post and then responded. my bad
Click to expand...

No problem at all, glad to have you post. I am collecting thoughts here and am quite happy to see someone else going in the same direction I did. One of the things that started this line of thought is that it is pretty much impractical to play 14.1 or one pocket on the seven foot tables. I'd like to see the nine footers come back strong or even the ten footers. Realistically we are probably looking at more and more seven footers or even smaller. We can tighten up the pockets and there is a world of difference but I am looking for a new standard and very tight pockets start getting very difficult to get them to play consistently. Distance is a far better way of varying difficulty, at least in my opinion.

Creating demand for these tables might be tricky but I have a few thoughts about that too.

Hu
 
That is one thing I am hoping . . .

Johnny,

One thing I am hoping is that if this idea took off it would be possible to just retrofit one piece side rails to existing tables. I don't think the side pocket openings would reach out far enough to be an issue but I haven't checked it. I did notice a three cushion table with pocket cut outs so if the owners decided they wanted a pocket table they could change rails, add pockets, and be in business without slate work. Hopefully the reverse could be done to bar tables.

I would think that the pocket blocks would bank differently than a full rail and either the blocks or the corners on the original rail ends might interfere with running down the rail sometimes. I don't know, never played with the blocks.

Hu


Johnnyt said:
I like the idea. No need for a whole new 7' table. All you need are pocket blocks for the side pockets like the blocks used to convert 10' pool tables to 3-cushion tables. The other way is to have one-piece long rails made for it. Johnnyt
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Not disagreeing with you at all but would you mind expanding on why you think it is worthless for 14.1 or more worthless than seven foot tables are to begin with? It definitely takes away the side pocket break shots, are there other issues that apply only to 14.1? Just trying to get a feel for how such tables would be received.

Thanks,
Hu
Click to expand...

14.1 at it's simplest and most effective is a game played in the front half of the table. The side pockets allow for this. Without the side pockets the game would be played for the longer north-south game rather than the shorter east-west game, and amongst other things eliminates the classic 3rd ball set-up, AND elimination of the side pocket takes away the shot option that brings the cueball back to the pack after you've done some "cleaning up" in the kitchen
 
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
Johnny,

One thing I am hoping is that if this idea took off it would be possible to just retrofit one piece side rails to existing tables. I don't think the side pocket openings would reach out far enough to be an issue but I haven't checked it. I did notice a three cushion table with pocket cut outs so if the owners decided they wanted a pocket table they could change rails, add pockets, and be in business without slate work. Hopefully the reverse could be done to bar tables.

I would think that the pocket blocks would bank differently than a full rail and either the blocks or the corners on the original rail ends might interfere with running down the rail sometimes. I don't know, never played with the blocks.

Hu
Click to expand...

If the blocks are made to fit right and installed with care...they work well, but one long rail would be the way to go. Either way it's a hell uv a lot cheaper than a new table:). Johnnyt
 
Thanks!

LAlouie said:
14.1 at it's simplest and most effective is a game played in the front half of the table. The side pockets allow for this. Without the side pockets the game would be played for the longer north-south game rather than the shorter east-west game, and amongst other things eliminates the classic 3rd ball set-up, AND elimination of the side pocket takes away the shot option that brings the cueball back to the pack after you've done some "cleaning up" in the kitchen
Click to expand...

Yes, this would do away with the half table game forcing the whole table to be used and it would take away bridge balls. I'm not sure if the final result would be better or worse.

I have to drive over twenty miles each way to play on a nine foot table now often in heavy traffic and of the four newest pool halls I know of around here two put in all eight foot tables, one put in seven foot tables with one nine footer, and the other one put in eight foot tables with one nine footer. Seems like the writing is on the wall as far as nine footers in this area. I don't want to drive an hour to find the one nine foot table tied up.

Thanks for expanding your thoughts. Definitely helpful!

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