10-foot table initially perceived as a "gaff" in the Earl/SVB challenge; not anymore!

[sfleinen]

10-foot table initially perceived as a "gaff" in the Earl/SVB challenge; not anymore!

Folks:

Without calling anyone out (no need to), it's obvious that the 10-foot table played a HUGE role in the match. Probably more so than many admit, and more likely in the face of the initial pre-match perceptions that the 10-foot table was a "gaff" that would have "minimal impact" on the end result.

While Earl's behavior certainly played a role (there's no doubt about that, even as stoic and seemingly-impervious that Shane is), I'm thinking the 10-foot table played a greater role. I'd warned that I suspected Earl knew what he was doing by introducing the 10-foot table as a constraint in the match, and it appears to have definitely affected the results.

Personally, I'd like to see the "Big Berthas" make a comeback. Perhaps not so much in tournaments (which strive to find the best-playing player on current equipment), but rather for challenge matches -- precisely for the purposes of what the 10-footer represents: an even greater test of pocketing accuracy and cue ball control. The better playing player -- which often translates to "the player that has the better fundamentals and adapts the quickest" -- is sure to be the one left standing.

In years gone by, 10-footers used to be common fare here in the straight pool Northeast. I think Ralph Greenleaf still holds the 14.1 high run record on a 10-footer: 272 (see the eighth paragraph down in this article).

What think ye?
-Sean

 

[jalapus logan]

10' tables for tourney play, no. For action/challenge matches, sure, what the hell.

 

[Zivan1967]

Folks:

Without calling anyone out (no need to), it's obvious that the 10-foot table played a HUGE role in the match. Probably more so than many admit, and more likely in the face of the initial pre-match perceptions that the 10-foot table was a "gaff" that would have "minimal impact" on the end result.

While Earl's behavior certainly played a role (there's no doubt about that, even as stoic and seemingly-impervious that Shane is), I'm thinking the 10-foot table played a greater role. I'd warned that I suspected Earl knew what he was doing by introducing the 10-foot table as a constraint in the match, and it appears to have definitely affected the results.

Personally, I'd like to see the "Big Berthas" make a comeback. Perhaps not so much in tournaments (which strive to find the best-playing player on current equipment), but rather for challenge matches -- precisely for the purposes of what the 10-footer represents: an even greater test of pocketing accuracy and cue ball control. The better playing player -- which often translates to "the player that has the better fundamentals and adapts the quickest" -- is sure to be the one left standing.

In years gone by, 10-footers used to be common fare here in the straight pool Northeast. I think Ralph Greenleaf still holds the 14.1 high run record on a 10-footer: 272 (see the eighth paragraph down in this article).

What think ye?
-Sean

I agree with this but I believe THIS 10 foot table played a huge roll in the match.

This table had rolls and oddly cut pockets, meaning you had to stroke all shots hard enough that they didn't roll off and soft enough that they didn't rattle in the pockets. Plus this was a 3 piece slate table that was 49 years old and both players said it rolled on shots after the match in their interveiws.

Having a 10 foot table with tight pockets and rolls you can't really shoot many soft shots. I think this threw Shane's speed control off for the match. He had to shoot harder than he wanted to make the shot but in doing so over ran position and was left with multiple long shots every rack. If the table was a 10 foot diamond I think Shane would have taken this match down (it would have been extremely close though, around 95-100). Earl has one of the best forceful strokes in the world, this table fit his style of play and I think that's what really gave him the advantage to take down SVB. Don't get me wrong though Earl outplayed Shane completely, I just think that this particular table gave him too much of an advantage.

 

[RobertR]

Agreed, John Schmidt said the table was 'goofy' in that it was a converted snooker table and the corners were cut strange and the shelves on the slate were made for smaller snooker balls.

Shane may have had ample time to practice on it, but as said previously, the table suited Earl's game better. I don't think anyone could argue that Earl is an all-around better player than Shane, but he was on that particular table.

 

[TATE]

I agree with this but I believe THIS 10 foot table played a huge roll in the match.

This table had rolls and oddly cut pockets, meaning you had to stroke all shots hard enough that they didn't roll off and soft enough that they didn't rattle in the pockets. Plus this was a 3 piece slate table that was 49 years old and both players said it rolled on shots after the match in their interveiws.

Having a 10 foot table with tight pockets and rolls you can't really shoot many soft shots. I think this threw Shane's speed control off for the match. He had to shoot harder than he wanted to make the shot but in doing so over ran position and was left with multiple long shots every rack. If the table was a 10 foot diamond I think Shane would have taken this match down (it would have been extremely close though, around 95-100). Earl has one of the best forceful strokes in the world, this table fit his style of play and I think that's what really gave him the advantage to take down SVB. Don't get me wrong though Earl outplayed Shane completely, I just think that this particular table gave him too much of an advantage.

This is right on the money. By the time Shane adjusted to this HACKED table, he had spotted Earl a lot of games. His big stroke was put in a straight jacket on this messed up table. He also needed a cue extension - Shane did not do very well with a bridge.

Put simply, this table's pockets - combined with his inability to play closer shape - got into Shane's head and he dogged. Make no mistake, he was missing shots because it was in his head and he was dogging shape too. How bad was this table? Balls were being spit back from the side pocket facings!

The doubt was obvious - created by the heat from Earl and the oddly cut, deep shelf pockets. Shane would have had a much better chance if this was a 10' pool table with standard pockets that would hold a fired ball.

Put simply, Shane was unprepared for this table or this match. He was caught off-guard and paid the price.

Chris

 

[sfleinen]

Agreed, John Schmidt said the table was 'goofy' in that it was a converted snooker table and the corners were cut strange and the shelves on the slate were made for smaller snooker balls.

Shane may have had ample time to practice on it, but as said previously, the table suited Earl's game better. I don't think anyone could argue that Earl is an all-around better player than Shane, but he was on that particular table.

Does anyone know if the "former life" history of this particular table is true? If so, I agree that this is then indeed a "gaff" table -- because it inherently isn't a pool table to begin with, no matter what retrofitting took place to it. The point about the thinner slate alone is worthy of consideration.

When I talk of 10-footers from the days of old, I'm talking about the original Brunswick Centennial or Gold Crown with the ashtrays molded into the pocket castings. (I think these had 1.5 or 1.75 inch slate, if memory serves?)

I personally wish I had the required space in my house to properly fit one of those original monsters!

-Sean

 

[youngstownkid]

yes it was a converted snooker table. the pockets had a smaller radius in the curve

 

[14oneman]

Folks:

Without calling anyone out (no need to), it's obvious that the 10-foot table played a HUGE role in the match. Probably more so than many admit, and more likely in the face of the initial pre-match perceptions that the 10-foot table was a "gaff" that would have "minimal impact" on the end result.

While Earl's behavior certainly played a role (there's no doubt about that, even as stoic and seemingly-impervious that Shane is), I'm thinking the 10-foot table played a greater role. I'd warned that I suspected Earl knew what he was doing by introducing the 10-foot table as a constraint in the match, and it appears to have definitely affected the results.

Personally, I'd like to see the "Big Berthas" make a comeback. Perhaps not so much in tournaments (which strive to find the best-playing player on current equipment), but rather for challenge matches -- precisely for the purposes of what the 10-footer represents: an even greater test of pocketing accuracy and cue ball control. The better playing player -- which often translates to "the player that has the better fundamentals and adapts the quickest" -- is sure to be the one left standing.

In years gone by, 10-footers used to be common fare here in the straight pool Northeast. I think Ralph Greenleaf still holds the 14.1 high run record on a 10-footer: 272 (see the eighth paragraph down in this article).

What think ye?
-Sean

I agree with you 100%! Would love to see 10's come back, especially in 14.1.

They have always been, and shall always remain, my favorite table size. :thumbup:

 

[tksix]

Couldn't they find a REAL 10' table to play on?! There are a couple in the Chicago area, I am sure there are more across the country. Why the hell are Pro's playing on a table that was pieced together like that?

I too would like to see 10"ers make a come back!!

Mike

 

[Johnnyt]

I said before the match that this was a gaff table. Earl had this cooking in his head for 4-5 years. I'm sure he played on this table a lot when it was in NC. I'll bet the pockets weren't any different then. Snooker table conversions to pool or 3-cushion hardly ever are done right. I still thought Shane would win, but that was before Earl and the table got into Shane's head.

Same thing happened to Mika in reverse when he played Shane on his home table. The poolroom recovered the bed and rails while Mika was out of country. Mika knew the table like the back of his hand and figured he didn't need to practice on it for days before the match. He figured with his table and the Magic Rack that he had a lock. When he walked in and saw the newly covered table he went ape-$hit. The dog was in his head after that and the rest is history.

The way Earl played on this table for those three days would be hard to fade for any player, but on a good set-up 10' table there would have been more pressure put on Earl. Good match Earl and one of the best moves I've seen in awile. Johnnyt

 

[Stones]

I played on a few 10' Brunswicks when I was a teenager. Believe me, that extra foot makes you feel like you're playing on a golf course instead of a pool table. Acres of green!

By my mid 20's, they were all gone.

Some of the billiard historians here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Through the early part of the 20th century, 10' tables were the standard with all the world championships and large tourneys being played on the 10'ers.

Two things happened around WWII. For one, Italy, being the largest supplier of slate quit importing it into the US because of the war. Large pieces of slate were hard to find.

Second, after the war, the pool table manufacturers started their marketing efforts toward home tables which meant the table sizes dropped to accomodate residential smaller rooms. Therefore, the increase in 8'ers and smaller and the demise of the 10'ers.

I read this somewhere a long time ago and I could be wrong.

I also remember reading that Irving Crane had a high run of 319 and Mosconi had a run of 322 on a 10'. These guys must have thought they'd died and gone to heaven with the introduction of 9'ers for tourney play after WWII.

Like I said, just some thoughts. I could be wrong.

Stones

 

[Johnnyt]

If you're the type of player that breaks the rack hard and scatters the balls up table and/or don't play position well you will find a 10' table MUCH harder than a 9' If you play good position and control the rack it's not much harder than a 10' if harder at all. I'm talking standard come from the factory here. That's the tables they played on in Mosconi's era. 5"+ pockets were stock. Johnnyt

 

[stevelomako]

yes it was a converted snooker table. the pockets had a smaller radius in the curve

I would like to bet against this.

Look at the rails and count the diamonds. There are 3 in each rail and all an equal distance apart.


Snooker tables have one diamond/dot on the side rails and they aren't an equal distance from the head and foot rails either. The head of the table the dots are where the line of the D is at (where the 2,3 and 4 spot up) and at the foot end the dots are even with where the 6 spots up.


We had both kinds in the room and the first thing I looked at on the stream was how many diamonds on the rails.

 

[Klopek]

0000000000

 

[RobertR]

I can and will argue that Earl is a better "all-around player" than Shane. I think people have forgotten what Earl has accomplished in his career. Maybe Earl's antics have overshadowed his on-table prowess, but the guy is a living legend. If only Earl could get out of his own way, he could win another world Championship.

Shane is young and may go on to best Earl's accomplishments, but currently, Earl has age, wisdom and experience that Shane just can't fade.

I disagree. Have a nice day.

 

[Klopek]

0000000000

 

[TATE]

Snooker tables don't have diamonds as far as I know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1s9oC5ebFs

However, I'm tired of reading all the BS about the table playing such a huge factor. Both players had to play on the same conditions, and if Shane couldn't figure the table out in a race to 100, that's his fault, not the table.

The same people whine about bad rolls and blame everything else but themselves.

What did Shane say about the table?. Is he blaming the table?.

Shane said the table had "funny" cut pockets and had a bellied slate. However, he said Earl outplayed him and that he couldn't beat Earl on a 10 footer.

I agree that he should have been better prepared for the match and should have adjusted quicker. Make no mistake, this table is a monster. Shane didn't have a cue extension and he needed to practice more on the 10 footer. The games he gave away on day one were too much to overcome.

The table and heat from Earl got into his head and he obviously lost confidence and dogged balls.

Earl also missed his share of shots due to the pockets and facings - but it got to Shane more.

Chris

 

[Johnnyt]

Shane said the table had "funny" cut pockets and had a bellied slate. However, he said Earl outplayed him and that he couldn't beat Earl on a 10 footer.

I agree that he should have been better prepared for the match and should have adjusted quicker. Make no mistake, this table is a monster. Shane didn't have a cue extension and he needed to practice more on the 10 footer. The games he gave away on day one were too much to overcome.

The table and heat from Earl got into his head and he obviously lost confidence and dogged balls.

Earl also missed his share of shots due to the pockets and facings - but it got to Shane more.

Chris

Cuetec makes a 6 extention that screws right in the butt of the cue. He could have had one overnighted wnen he first got there on Monday.

 

[DunnM1]

My 5X10 Custom Olhausen. Tight pockets.

I hear everyone talking about the table, but I also hear that a rematch would have at least twice the amount of money bet. Makes you wonder!

 

[Zivan1967]

Snooker tables don't have diamonds as far as I know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1s9oC5ebFs

However, I'm tired of reading all the BS about the table playing such a huge factor. Both players had to play on the same conditions, and if Shane couldn't figure the table out in a race to 100, that's his fault, not the table.

The same people whine about bad rolls and blame everything else but themselves.

What did Shane say about the table?. Is he blaming the table?.

In the interview after the match Shane said Earl played better than him and he couldn't win, but he also made sure to mention the pockets are cut funny and there are rolls on the table due to the 3 piece slate having problems.

This table played to Earl's strengths and that is shot making. Earl is one of the best if not THE best shot maker in the world. Shane couldn't fade that, but on another 10 foot table that was set up correctly Shane would have done much better than he did.

Don't get me wrong either, Earl is the best pool player i've ever seen, watch day 2 of the color of money match and he hits a gear that people dream about. It just seems weird that Earl who strives for perfection would allow the match to be played on a table that had so many problems. Maybe he knew very well what those problems were, and he knew that it would be to his advantage to have a table with rolls and funny pockets so the better shot maker would win.

In the end Earl definitely beat Shane without a doubt, but I think Shane spotted Earl more than he thought by letting Earl pick the 10 foot table.