4ea Diamond 5'x10' ProAms in the making.
- Thread starter realkingcobra
- Start date
Glen, so long as they're just messing around with prototype tables - throw a couple of snooker tables in the configuration. I'll test them. :grin:
this sounds great but where does it stop?? a conventional pool room couldnt afford one of these and if so it could probably only have one. and then what someone converts a 6x12 and thats the next best thing???
i like the idea of a 5x10 for pros i think that will make a huge diffrence but due to space restictions and money i dought that they are going to be to very popular.
would love to watch the rematch on one of these.
and yes the table does make a diffrence slim.
all we can do is wait and see.
i like the idea of a 5x10 for pros i think that will make a huge diffrence but due to space restictions and money i dought that they are going to be to very popular.
would love to watch the rematch on one of these.
and yes the table does make a diffrence slim.
all we can do is wait and see.
Slim....there have been plenty of 5'x10' real pocket pool tables built by Brunswick over the last 75 years, if someone would have taken a little more time to find one, and have played that match on a real pool table...I'd have never even posted a word about the table used, but that wasn't the case...and that's where I have the problem. I care to much about this sport to see it bastardized by something so bad as by the table that match was played on. Have YOU ever played on a snooker table converted to a pool table, with pocket angles like the ones on that circus table they played on?...If you ever had, then you'd know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I think we've come to far in this sport, to start back-stepping with freak pool tables, when it comes to seeing 2 of the best pool players on earth matching up in a race to 100.
I don't care what any of you say, if a pool table don't play right....it DOES effect your total overall game....or NONE of you would have EVER complained about how Diamond tables bank short, or play springy off the rails in the past...PERIOD! But, playing a match on that table just goes to show that MOST of you here on AZ don't know SHIT about how a real pool table is suppose to play...because you're ALL a bunch of EXPERTS on everything...EXCEPT pool tables, because that's where your expertise falls short...which is WHY the pool tables are in the condition they're in from coast to coast in this country, and table manufactures can get away with producing the junk they do today...because YOU buyers don't know shit when you see it!
Glen
No, they played a 9 footer with fairly wide pockets (to Earl's dismay)
...because YOU buyers don't know shit when you see it!
Glen
Glen - I know shit when I see... and this here is SHIT!!
Home Depot-esque "You Can Do It![TM]"
Glen:
BRAVO! This states nearly perfectly what is wrong with some of the thinking in this thread. I think it goes back to the following:
1. "Armchair quarterbacks" rampant in these forums. But then what else is new?
2. The "Home Depot" way of thinking. Let's be honest -- a pool table is a SIMPLE device. Other than sophisticated ball return mechanisms, a pool table is merely a big slab of slate, resting on and leveled on a base, with rails attached to the slate's perimeter, pocket cut-outs strategically/geometrically placed. At least that's what the average layman / pool player thinks. Anyone somewhat mechanically inclined and handy with tools and materials would look at a pool table's construction, and say, "oh, I can do that!" and, "I can fix that!" and, "I can make that better!" At least that's what the average layman / pool player thinks.
The problem is not so much with item #1 (these people are harmless -- all hot air). Rather, the problem is with item #2. We have too many Home Depot-esque "You Can Do It[TM]" "table mechanics" out there, in the form of room owners, pool players, and industry people. Too many people that consider themselves "handy" with tools, that "think" they can repair or even modify a table. And, they either butcher the job, or else do an inadequate job. (Concerning the latter -- the inadequate job -- it's very easy for one to step back after installing new cloth / rails / cushions, notice the "shiny new-ness" of everything, and go, "oh wow -- that looks *so* much better! I think I did a great job!" And they walk off, patting themselves on the back for "a job well done" -- thinking they saved oh-so-much-money. When in actuality, a good table mechanic will look at the job -- looking past the "shiny new-ness" and more at details like how the cushions/pockets were cut, how the cloth was folded/stapled, etc. -- and realize what a hack job it was.)
And like you say, converting a table designed for one cue sport to satisfy the needs of a different cue sport -- versus a purpose-built table -- exemplifies the Home Depot-esque "You Can Do It![TM]" flawed thinking. And it is what perpetuates the poorly-configured and hacked tables -- a never-ending cycle.
I'm hoping the cycle can be broken with the introduction of *proper* 10-footer *pool* tables by a *pool table manufacterer*. Not hacked snooker tables.
Great post,
-Sean
Slim....there have been plenty of 5'x10' real pocket pool tables built by Brunswick over the last 75 years, if someone would have taken a little more time to find one, and have played that match on a real pool table...I'd have never even posted a word about the table used, but that wasn't the case...and that's where I have the problem. I care to much about this sport to see it bastardized by something so bad as by the table that match was played on. Have YOU ever played on a snooker table converted to a pool table, with pocket angles like the ones on that circus table they played on?...If you ever had, then you'd know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I think we've come to far in this sport, to start back-stepping with freak pool tables, when it comes to seeing 2 of the best pool players on earth matching up in a race to 100.
I don't care what any of you say, if a pool table don't play right....it DOES effect your total overall game....or NONE of you would have EVER complained about how Diamond tables bank short, or play springy off the rails in the past...PERIOD! But, playing a match on that table just goes to show that MOST of you here on AZ don't know SHIT about how a real pool table is suppose to play...because you're ALL a bunch of EXPERTS on everything...EXCEPT pool tables, because that's where your expertise falls short...which is WHY the pool tables are in the condition they're in from coast to coast in this country, and table manufactures can get away with producing the junk they do today...because YOU buyers don't know shit when you see it!
Glen
Glen:
BRAVO! This states nearly perfectly what is wrong with some of the thinking in this thread. I think it goes back to the following:
1. "Armchair quarterbacks" rampant in these forums. But then what else is new?
2. The "Home Depot" way of thinking. Let's be honest -- a pool table is a SIMPLE device. Other than sophisticated ball return mechanisms, a pool table is merely a big slab of slate, resting on and leveled on a base, with rails attached to the slate's perimeter, pocket cut-outs strategically/geometrically placed. At least that's what the average layman / pool player thinks. Anyone somewhat mechanically inclined and handy with tools and materials would look at a pool table's construction, and say, "oh, I can do that!" and, "I can fix that!" and, "I can make that better!" At least that's what the average layman / pool player thinks.
The problem is not so much with item #1 (these people are harmless -- all hot air). Rather, the problem is with item #2. We have too many Home Depot-esque "You Can Do It[TM]" "table mechanics" out there, in the form of room owners, pool players, and industry people. Too many people that consider themselves "handy" with tools, that "think" they can repair or even modify a table. And, they either butcher the job, or else do an inadequate job. (Concerning the latter -- the inadequate job -- it's very easy for one to step back after installing new cloth / rails / cushions, notice the "shiny new-ness" of everything, and go, "oh wow -- that looks *so* much better! I think I did a great job!" And they walk off, patting themselves on the back for "a job well done" -- thinking they saved oh-so-much-money. When in actuality, a good table mechanic will look at the job -- looking past the "shiny new-ness" and more at details like how the cushions/pockets were cut, how the cloth was folded/stapled, etc. -- and realize what a hack job it was.)
And like you say, converting a table designed for one cue sport to satisfy the needs of a different cue sport -- versus a purpose-built table -- exemplifies the Home Depot-esque "You Can Do It![TM]" flawed thinking. And it is what perpetuates the poorly-configured and hacked tables -- a never-ending cycle.
I'm hoping the cycle can be broken with the introduction of *proper* 10-footer *pool* tables by a *pool table manufacterer*. Not hacked snooker tables.
Great post,
-Sean
Wow again
i hate to use this term but, sean that is some awesome "nut huggin" your doin there, i am not sure glen will be able sit down.
Nicely written post, too bad it has nothing to do with the point that i am trying to debate with glen,
SLIM
i hate to use this term but, sean that is some awesome "nut huggin" your doin there, i am not sure glen will be able sit down.
Nicely written post, too bad it has nothing to do with the point that i am trying to debate with glen,
SLIM
I'd love to have a 5x10 in the local pool hall so I hope they make them soon.
While all this back and forth is all well and good, at the end of the day both EXTREMELY high level players played on the same table, under the same conditions. And both had plenty of time over the previous week to become acclimated to that table.
Perhaps it affected one player more than the other somewhat, but you could say that about any other table that the same two players play on, so long as they both have ample time to get acclimated to it.
Perhaps that table was horrible. But it would still be horrible for anyone playing on it. I somehow doubt the table adjusted it's own level of difficulty over the course of the match, much less over the course of the week prior, when BOTH players were practicing on it. I expect if it was indeed horrible, that it was consistently horrible. The same for both players.
To blame one players loss on the table takes away from both players skill and expertise. That isn't fair to either of those amazing competitors.
Will it be fun to watch them do it again, on a newly-built "proper" table? Sure. That doesn't take anything away from the amazing match we've already seen.
Perhaps it affected one player more than the other somewhat, but you could say that about any other table that the same two players play on, so long as they both have ample time to get acclimated to it.
Perhaps that table was horrible. But it would still be horrible for anyone playing on it. I somehow doubt the table adjusted it's own level of difficulty over the course of the match, much less over the course of the week prior, when BOTH players were practicing on it. I expect if it was indeed horrible, that it was consistently horrible. The same for both players.
To blame one players loss on the table takes away from both players skill and expertise. That isn't fair to either of those amazing competitors.
Will it be fun to watch them do it again, on a newly-built "proper" table? Sure. That doesn't take anything away from the amazing match we've already seen.
Slim:
Actually, it has a lot to do with your point, albeit from a different perspective. You just happened to miss it, or not make the connection, or else are just so lock-jawed onto your point and aren't seeing past it.
And, it's too bad you took personally what I wrote were generalities in the industry. Why? Because I responded to Glen's post, which just happened, by coincidence, to be a response to yours?
-Sean
Life goes on
we all understand that the table was not the perfect table.
That being understood: I think there is only one person who believes that the match being played on that table is going to bring about the downfall of pool as we know it.
I have tried to keep up with this thread, so if this has already been answered i apologize.
Has shane complained to anyone about the table conditions?
SLIM
we all understand that the table was not the perfect table.
That being understood: I think there is only one person who believes that the match being played on that table is going to bring about the downfall of pool as we know it.
I have tried to keep up with this thread, so if this has already been answered i apologize.
Has shane complained to anyone about the table conditions?
SLIM
Slim:
That's better. I don't think the issue is whether the table Shane/Earl played on was a gaff table or not. (I think consensus was reached long ago on that.)
And, I don't think the point about whether the table itself "was the ultimate influence on the outcome of the match." Nope. Like it was stated before -- both players played on that same table: Earl *and* Shane. One player was able to adapt, the other wasn't. Some may say that Shane's "style" -- being different from Earl's "style" -- was more adversely affected from the gaffiness of the table than Earl. I don't buy that for a minute. Shane's just as dead-nuts accurate as Earl, and just as capable of controlling the cue ball as Earl. (Remember, Shane plays on all equipment -- not just Diamond tables -- to include barboxes and challenge matches on same. Remember Shane vs Frost "on a barbox, round 1 and round 2"?) He just wasn't *THAT DAY* in his match with Earl, and methinks an earlier post by JCIN confirmed that, directly from the horse's mouth -- Shane himself.
But (and you knew there was one, right?), players of this caliber shouldn't be playing on anything less than the best purpose-built equipment, unless the gaff equipment is the gaff part of the bet. This match was advertised as "being played on a 10 x 5 table" -- with the presumption that the increased size was going to be an influence / seller of this match. The assumption was that this was a purpose-built pool table. It wasn't. And that's where I think a misstep took place. Instead of bannering "...played on a 10'x5' table" and leaving it at that, some background should've been given about the table, so that viewers knew ahead of time, instead of finding out after the fact, with the resulting "controversy" ensuing.
Like Glen mentioned, *real* Big Berthas are easily found -- especially when one casts their net over the entire country. There's more than a couple pool rooms in the entire U.S. that sport an original purpose-built 10'x5' Brunswick pool table. Some of them are easily recognizable, too -- ashtrays molded into the pocket castings, etc. This class of table is in more of the spirit of what the match's requirements had intended -- a "control" foundation, not a variable.
-Sean
Part of testing skill is using different equipment
very few pros in any sport complain about the conditions they play under.
they know that different conditions exist & they will not always be perfect.
a couple things bother me about this whole situation.
1) as far as i have heard, shane never complained about the table. (tired of listening to people whine about nothing)
2) the term gaff has been thrown around by people who do not know what it means. (gaff means making it impossible for someone to win)
SLIM
very few pros in any sport complain about the conditions they play under.
they know that different conditions exist & they will not always be perfect.
a couple things bother me about this whole situation.
1) as far as i have heard, shane never complained about the table. (tired of listening to people whine about nothing)
2) the term gaff has been thrown around by people who do not know what it means. (gaff means making it impossible for someone to win)
SLIM
Does anyone have a count on how many innocent threads have been turned into SVB vs The Pearl threads since their match.. haha
And I agree (and agreed, past tense) with you on this. I mentioned JCIN's previous post.
While I agree with you that the term "gaff" had been bandied about by folks in this thread who may not know what the term means or how it's properly used, I disagree with your meaning of it, which I assume you mean to be as "a con" and nothing else. The word "gaff" actually has a number of meanings, not the least of which is, "a hook" -- or something to throw someone off his/her game. It doesn't mean it makes it impossible for someone to win. (That, to me, is a "lock" -- and that's something I think the pool world has too many of [lock artists], but I digress...) Just that the person overcoming the gaff has to try that much harder. It could also mean -- and in this case with the table Shane/Earl played on, is probably the more apropos meaning -- an error or faux pas, or in this case that the table was flawed (i.e. "the audience enjoyed the spectacular play even though the table was gaffed" or "the commentator was forgiven for his obvious off-color gaff on the air").
-Sean
Slim...you're missing my entire point of my posts buddy. My posts are not about Shane loosing to Earl....if it were....I'd be asking you if you remember not to long ago when Shane ROASTED Earl on a 9ft Diamond? I don't care who won the last race to 100, THAT is not the point....here, I'll say it so you understand...EARL beat Shane on THAT gaff table that BOTH of them played on. NOW...my point was...and STILL is....that because of that table....that they DID play on....NO ONE got to see the REAL talents of BOTH players...running racks...and getting out! YES...Slim....Earl DID beat Shane during that event. BUT...having talked to Shane since then...I know for a fact...he'd never play Earl on THAT table again....you can take that to the bank!
Would I like to see them play again...YES, but ONLY if it's on a real 5'x10' with correct pockets, cloth, cushions...LEVEL slates...the REAL kind of pool that they BOTH are capable of playing....THEN....lets see who comes out on top!
PERSONALY...I think if the table had been a real pocket table...Shane would have beat Earl....but, that's just my OPINION!
Glen
Would I like to see them play again...YES, but ONLY if it's on a real 5'x10' with correct pockets, cloth, cushions...LEVEL slates...the REAL kind of pool that they BOTH are capable of playing....THEN....lets see who comes out on top!
PERSONALY...I think if the table had been a real pocket table...Shane would have beat Earl....but, that's just my OPINION!
Glen