JA and Earl confirm it, 5x10 tables are a must.

[Celtic]

I am watching the match atm and one thing stands out, this table looks like a little kiddie table for these two players. It looks like a skid is going to be the determining shot for the match, not skill but a bit of chalk on a ball.

On that 5x10 that Earl played Shane on this straight pool game would be WAY harder and it is unlikely a person going to run the set out in a single inning. That 5x10 match was thrilling to watch, every shot was an adventure and a threat to be missed, this table is so easy the players look like they are going through the motions and as a pool fanatic I will tell you, it is WAY more boring to watch pro's torture an easy table like this instead of pulling out their maximum skills and needing every bit of them to perform on that 5x10.

After watching pool as it was meant to be played and now watching a shift back to a 4 1/2 x 9 I gotta say, we cannot get the pro's off these 9 footers fast enough for the betterment of the sport.

 

[Jpowell7575]

Agreed. Archer can't miss, he's running patterns perfect. They make it look so easy. All that may stop him is some bad luck on a breakout shot.

 

[brophog]

Each has had one bad break of luck, but look otherwise flawless.

 

[Celtic]

Each has had one bad break of luck, but look otherwise flawless.

And that is the key problem. Bad luck is the ONLY thing causing loss of innings, the match is a coin flip to see who gets unlucky less, that is a TERRIBLE way to determine the outcome of a match.

 

[brophog]

And that is the key problem. Bad luck is the ONLY thing causing loss of innings, the match is a coin flip to see who gets unlucky less, that is a TERRIBLE way to determine the outcome of a match.

If I explained to you how much, mathematically, "luck" played in to sports then you'd probably stop watching all of them.

When two players are playing like this, it always comes down to little things, and often times those little things fall into the realm of what most would call 'luck'.

It is what it is.

 

[Celtic]

In effect this calibre of players playing on this table is akin to....

Negraneau: "Do you have any 3's?"
Ivey: "Go Fish"

or

Announcer: "Well folks, what an amazing match we have here. Long have we waited to see the return of Bobby Fisher and this epic battle between him and Kasparov. Get ready for some amazing checkers!!!"

or

Announcer: "Tiger is bearing down on this putt, if he makes this shot he wins, if not we are going to extra holes to decide who wins between him and Phil in this epic battle. He shoots, the ball is going up the ramp, It has gotten through the windmill blades!!! OMG it has banked off the back wall and gone in the hole!!! Tiger wins!!!"

That is pool these days, and we wonder why this sport sucks.

 

[Powerlifter]

Earl agrees..."this game is too easy unless you have really tight pockets"

 

[brophog]

Moving to a 5 x 10, at least in the beginning, would make the game more challenging for players of this caliber. However, they'd soon adjust as players in all games and all sports adjust to new conditions. Both in cue sports, and competitions in general, there are countless examples of this happening. When players at the elite level adjust, then you're back at square one again. It's not a permanent "solution", by any means, and not without its problems.

The real question, and the case that needs to be conclusively made, is how does that turn the sport into a spectator sport, specifically, a televised spectator sport, and more specifically, a spectator sport in a country that has never considered cue sports as such.

 

[Williebetmore]

However, they'd soon adjust as players in all games and all sports adjust to new conditions. Both in cue sports, and competitions in general, there are countless examples of this happening. When players at the elite level adjust, then you're back at square one again. It's not a permanent "solution", by any means, and not without its problems.

.

B-man,
While the principle is sound, your assessment of "soon" is WAY off in my view.

What Earl knows, and what Shane and his backer did NOT know, is that when you get on a tight pocket 10 footer, the demand for precision is WAY higher than on a 9 footer. Most of the pro players have developed their game for the 9 footers; and their fundamentals will never allow them to compete with someone like Earl on the bigger table. To do so would require a significant re-structuring of their strokes, not just a bit of practice on a bigger table. Most will perform about Shane's level, but never much higher. What Earl was doing is impossible for most pro players.

I think Celtic is right; rotation games on a 9 footer will almost always be decided by luck (luck of the break, luck of the layout, luck of the skid) among players with similar skill levels. Bravo for those promoting the 10 footer.

 

[ArizonaPete]

I am watching the match atm and one thing stands out, this table looks like a little kiddie table for these two players. It looks like a skid is going to be the determining shot for the match, not skill but a bit of chalk on a ball.

On that 5x10 that Earl played Shane on this straight pool game would be WAY harder and it is unlikely a person going to run the set out in a single inning. That 5x10 match was thrilling to watch, every shot was an adventure and a threat to be missed, this table is so easy the players look like they are going through the motions and as a pool fanatic I will tell you, it is WAY more boring to watch pro's torture an easy table like this instead of pulling out their maximum skills and needing every bit of them to perform on that 5x10.

After watching pool as it was meant to be played and now watching a shift back to a 4 1/2 x 9 I gotta say, we cannot get the pro's off these 9 footers fast enough for the betterment of the sport.

I couldn't agree more. The game would be much more exciting and challenging if the matches were played on a 5x10.

 

[ccshrimper]

I don't know how popular it would make pool but I agree, it would make the game much harder. It would not be an easy adjustment because too many of the pros these days have poke strokes and couldn't maneuver the ball around. Look at how many players play world class on a bar table but are mediocre pros on a 9'. Less than 10 pros would dominate the major tournaments if they moved to 10' tables IMO.

 

[Rick S.]

I couldn't agree more. The game would be much more exciting and challenging if the matches were played on a 5x10.

Much better game on a 5x10. So much more excitement in the game.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

All of a sudden 9' tables only produce a lucky winner? I just don't buy it.

Look, the Earl/SVB match was interesting and well played. The table added a different dimension to the match. But it didn't suddenly make the 9' table obsolete. jmho. :wink: The 4" pockets on that table probably had more to do with it than the extra square footage.

 

[brophog]

B-man,
While the principle is sound, your assessment of "soon" is WAY off in my view.

The word "soon" is relative. To attempt to discretely define the time frame would be challenging, and serve no real purpose to this conversation.

I think Celtic is right; rotation games on a 9 footer will almost always be decided by luck (luck of the break, luck of the layout, luck of the skid) among players with similar skill levels.

Randomness exists, and that's just a fact of life. Competition is often thought of in terms that attempt to nullify its existence, but that is in error. The closer any two competitors are, the more magnitude will be placed on isolated events, and some of those events will be considered "luck". You can attempt in vain to fight it, or you can realize that it will exist.

You can make longer sets to differentiate between two entities that appear equal, but that only works out effectively for sets that tend to be longer than other conditions will accept (such as TV, who, in general, favors more randomness and not less), and does relatively little to account for two entities whose skill levels really are similar. Americans, in particular, have a real problem with this because as a collective culture Americans don't like to believe in the third possible outcome: a tie. Sometimes the problem is simply the non-acceptance of this third outcome, and therefore an outcome is generated to satisfy this desire.

You can attempt to exert added challenge to the event, but that only works until the competitors adjust to the new challenge. In the short term, it gives advantages and disadvantages in the new setting, but in the long term you still wind up with some subset of competitors at the highest level. In terms of addressing the situation, it is irrelevant who the competitors are, only that some subset of some size will eventually emerge.

Golf is a good example of this. Over the years the equipment and players have gotten, as a collective, better. So they lengthen the courses to compensate for the players ability to drive the ball longer and hit the ball more accurate, again, as a collective base. It's a constant struggle, because over time, the players continue to adjust. Eventually, not only has the adjustments to the conditions of the game failed to provide the effect desired, but new problems are often created as a result.

Pool would see the same thing as golf, in this regard, over some period of time. I have no personal problem with making the tables bigger, and I don't disagree that, in the short term, the level of challenge would rise and change the conditions of the game. It's the big picture that needs careful examination, however, as do many of the theories suggesting this as a necessary, and overall beneficial change.

 

[Williebetmore]

The word "soon" is relative. To attempt to discretely define the time frame would be challenging, and serve no real purpose to this conversation.

. It's the big picture that needs careful examination, however, as do many of the theories suggesting this as a necessary, and overall beneficial change.

Actually I was thinking closer to "never" than "soon."

Also, I wonder if many here remember that the 5 x 10 was the standard table for 100 years (much longer than the 9 foot); I think students of the game know what it would be like (higher chance of the best player winning - still some luck). I'm doubtful that there would be any unintended consequences...other than a lot of pros would find they are not as competitive as they think they are (competitors now are not as close as current playing conditions make them seem).

You may be unaware of the DCC experiments here on AZB in 2005, 2006. We independently looked at 100 racks of 9-ball played by high level pros at DCC. After the opening break we tried to predict the winner of that rack, based only on the results of the opening break. The winner was predicted with a little over 80% accuracy. That's a LOT of luck to try to fade; not a "championship game". Straight pool on a tight 5 x 10 will differentiate players fairly reliably and easily - with 9 Ball on a 9 footer a lot of different people can win.

 

[Nick B]

So why do a lot of you still play bar box pool? Same argument. Different levels.

Nick

 

[Celtic]

So why do a lot of you still play bar box pool? Same argument. Different levels.

Nick

Same reason most golfers play from the white tees. Most of us are still struggling to break 100 from them. The pro's on the PGA though, noone wants to watch them play from the whites on a 5500 yard course, they play from the tips and special tee boxes that add difficulty in order to test their far higher then average skill levels.

Amature pool can be played on the bar box or a 9-foot table. We miss enough that lucky swings do not normally equate to 5 games. For the pro's the odd rub here and there is the only thing that stops them on a 9-foot more often then not. The score of the straight pool match with in the hundreds for both players and neither had missed a shot, one guy had a ball kick and another scratched off the pack on a breakout.

The match with Shane and Earl though? That table made luck a small minority in the overall scheme of things and loss of innings, the players missed and screwed up to lose most of their turns at the table due to their skill and ability, not luck. That IMO is how it should be.

 

[Rooolfl]

I think I watched every rack of Tar 20 with exception of the end of day 2 where I dozed off. Imo the difference in play we saw to regular TV 10-Ball,

has to be attributed to the pocket size and condition as much or more than to the size of the table. I'm sure the level of play would have been a lot

higher if they had played on a 5x10 with normal 4,5 inch pockets.



however, that does not explain how Earl always played a foot closer position than Shane.:groucho:

 

[master9baller]

I think I watched every rack of Tar 20 with exception of the end of day 2 where I dozed off. Imo the difference in play we saw to regular TV 10-Ball,

has to be attributed to the pocket size and condition as much or more than to the size of the table. I'm sure the level of play would have been a lot

higher if they had played on a 5x10 with normal 4,5 inch pockets.



however, that does not explain how Earl always played a foot closer position than Shane.:groucho:

Confidence, Earl had it Shane never did on day 3 anyway. There were a few times where if he would have stepped up, he would have made it a game.

 

[westcoast]

I think I watched every rack of Tar 20 with exception of the end of day 2 where I dozed off. Imo the difference in play we saw to regular TV 10-Ball,

has to be attributed to the pocket size and condition as much or more than to the size of the table. I'm sure the level of play would have been a lot

higher if they had played on a 5x10 with normal 4,5 inch pockets.



however, that does not explain how Earl always played a foot closer position than Shane.:groucho:

Yes, that is true about the pockets

I thought the Earl-Archer match was supposed to be played on tight pockets, but it certainly wasn't