Should the TAR table stay as is or go to standard pockets? You choose.
- Thread starter JCIN
- Start date
I like the fatboy rails. RKC stated they were slightly different then what you have on now?
If not, go to 4.5" for all the 10 ball match-ups.
If not, go to 4.5" for all the 10 ball match-ups.
BTW, thanks for the kind observations earlier -- much appreciated. I very much appreciate civil discussion when the viewpoints are on opposite sides of the fence.
Getting back on point, I'm not sure how "standardizing" the equipment is suddenly going to -- or even lay the groundwork for -- a groundswell of increased viewership of TAR and all of pool.
This is not the Olympics, where the pommel horse has to be "X x Y x Z" dimensions, or the rings need to be "X" number of meters off the ground, made of "Y" material, and be "Z" in diameter. I dare say those dimensions in the Olympics grew out of time -- way after the Olympics itself was already popular in the public eye.
Making the TAR table "standardized" is not a fix for any kind of perceived lack of viewership. Any perceived problems with viewership or the popularity of pool goes FAR beyond -- light years beyond -- any "problems" with the equipment. I don't want to say that standardizing the equipment is like fixing deck chairs on the Titanic, but certainly, it's not addressing the root issues *at all*. Guys like Justin C. and Mark G. are very smart guys -- they're still searching for those root issues.
And let's look at the purpose of this poll to begin with: why have it? Simple. To address any concerns with current viewership. It can't possibly fix the issue of increasing the viewership, when that ghost viewership has NO IDEA about the TAR table to begin with.
Just IMHO,
-Sean
10 ball and 9 ball is an Aggresive shot makers game. I think with pockets two tight it takes away from the beauty of the game. I love when a player makes a great stroke shot instead of playing a safe. When did diamond pro cut pockets get to big? It's not like its a slop box. When all the old time greats played were people complaining about pockets being to big on those gold crowns? I doubt it people saw Buddy, and Earl put packages together that's exciting! When the tables are to tight a six or seven game lead is Hugh. I vote 4.5 bring back the beauty of the game. That being said I will support TAR on whatever decision is made. Thanks Justin
Why do people keep comparing golf to pool? This is pool folks not golf
I have mixed feelings about this. For starters, the standard Diamond is already a fairly small pocket-size. We're not talking about Gold Crowns with 5.25" pockets. These Diamonds play pretty solid. I think the longer the match (no matter what game), the wider the pockets. If it's a single race to 9, they should be tightened up considerably but a race to 100 can be played on anything and in my opinion, should be 4.5".
Htown Squirrel
Registered
Put your big boy pants on and keep the table the same or tighten it up if anything.
4.5 is pretty big. Its not a gold crown for league players, its for the best we have to offer to show off our sport/hobby.
Bring on the 4 1/8 inch pockets
4.5 is pretty big. Its not a gold crown for league players, its for the best we have to offer to show off our sport/hobby.
Bring on the 4 1/8 inch pockets
tar table
I think the tighter the better because isn't that only way to find out who the better player is. I want to see excellence not mediocrity on a pool table.
I think the tighter the better because isn't that only way to find out who the better player is. I want to see excellence not mediocrity on a pool table.
One other variable that is being over looked in this conversation is the origin of pressure. Where does pressure come from? It's a really interesting dynamic I think.
On the really tight tables, it's almost like the players aren't even concerned with each other's play. In the recent match, I imagine when Darren (and Shane for that matter) was shooting he wasn't really worried that if he missed, he was going to be in his chair for an extended period of time. He wasn't worried that Shane was going to run out the set on him, or put up a 10 pack. He was more worried about the table swallowing him up. Of course, I'm just mind reading here so play along for a second. He wasn't experiencing the same feeling Irving Crane felt when he played Mosconi, or vice versa -- that's different.
So where does pressure come from? Is it the table or the opponent? Recently in the TAR matches I feel like it has solely been the table and we are missing that dynamic of fear of the opponent. Fearing what your opponent is going to do you can make even a 4.5 inch pocket seem smaller....I think.
Bottom line for me is - in a lot of these TAR matches it's felt more like 2 different matches occurring on the same table: Player A vs. the Table & Player B vs. the Table. When the tables are easier and the races are longer it feels more like man vs. man.
On the really tight tables, it's almost like the players aren't even concerned with each other's play. In the recent match, I imagine when Darren (and Shane for that matter) was shooting he wasn't really worried that if he missed, he was going to be in his chair for an extended period of time. He wasn't worried that Shane was going to run out the set on him, or put up a 10 pack. He was more worried about the table swallowing him up. Of course, I'm just mind reading here so play along for a second. He wasn't experiencing the same feeling Irving Crane felt when he played Mosconi, or vice versa -- that's different.
So where does pressure come from? Is it the table or the opponent? Recently in the TAR matches I feel like it has solely been the table and we are missing that dynamic of fear of the opponent. Fearing what your opponent is going to do you can make even a 4.5 inch pocket seem smaller....I think.
Bottom line for me is - in a lot of these TAR matches it's felt more like 2 different matches occurring on the same table: Player A vs. the Table & Player B vs. the Table. When the tables are easier and the races are longer it feels more like man vs. man.
I play on one all the time and until the cloth gets REALLY worn in, its way too soft..... And it even has the extra facings on the pockets to make it 4-3/8".
The players of today, would beat the players of yester-year. Like every sport, the players of today have gotten better. The same way Tiger is better than Jack. New technology and equipment, plus the internet lets information flow at a much higher pace is making the players today better. Your short stops of today would pry beat or break even with 90% of the pro's from way back when.
To answer your question, Earl still can play at that rhythm, the other guys, who knows, but Shane, Alex, JA, etc can all still roll at that rhythm.
I voted 4.5.
I have played a lot of pool, snooker, and 3-cushion.....
I like all three games.
I like the danger and cue-ball control that pool demands.
If pool tables keep getting tighter...then pay-ball would make more sense.
9-ball on a snooker table is boring.:boring2:
Let pool remain...'If you miss, you lose'
I have played a lot of pool, snooker, and 3-cushion.....
I like all three games.
I like the danger and cue-ball control that pool demands.
If pool tables keep getting tighter...then pay-ball would make more sense.
9-ball on a snooker table is boring.:boring2:
Let pool remain...'If you miss, you lose'
Winner!
And here is why...
To use the golf analogy...if every tournament was setup like the U.S. Open golf would never have gotten to the levels of popularity it has....imo of course. I love the US Open. All the spoiled babies have to suck it up and play golf! Not only do they have to overcome their opponents and the course but they also have to overcome themselves! BUT...I am in the minority when it comes to the golfing audience. People love to see pros go deep in golf tournaments.
People need to be able to idolize the pros and if they aren't stringing racks then they are playing "just like I do". Golf pros today would have never made it back in the day on the tracks Arnie and Co had to play on. The grass was sooo bad then. So why did golf gain ground....oh yeah...a hero in the name of Arnold Palmer. He didn't play it safe. He would go for everything or at least it seemed that way. What about Efren's amazing Z bank which has resurfaced lately. If that had been a 4" pocket we would be shaking Earl's hand for beating Efren that day...not remembering the legend of the Z Bank!
Ok...I am rambling but have one last point. The other day a friend and I were discussing equipment. We were playing on a 9' Diamond with 4.5" pockets. And we felt if we ran a rack then we matched a feat that the pros did because the equipment was similar. And I pointed out that that could very seldom happen in golf. I will never get the chance to break par on Augusta...they won't let me trough the gate!
My vote is for standardized tables. 4.5" pockets and the making of heroes to the novice and intermediate players!
Thank you for asking Justin!
Ken
I don't think tighter equipment necessarily brings out "excellence". If I'm staring at an 8-foot shot with a 70-degree cut, I'm going to consider my defensive options. If I'm forced to shoot at this and hang it up, my opponent is going to be shooting at a hanger - not exactly "excellence", if you ask me.
The advantage to tighter equipment is the obvious. There is greater likelihood both players will get to shoot. How the games play out is anyone's guess but I wouldn't be quick to say it'll be better. There will be more missing and more defensive shots. I wouldn't say that makes it less mediocre. In a race to 100 (or something of that nature), there's going to be missing so I don't entirely see why tighter equipment is necessary but that's only my opinion.
With that said, I know when I play 8-ball in Vegas, I always prefer the 4" pockets. The combination of 8-ball on a barbox produces a lot of routine shots and the tighter pockets toughens the game up again. If we were racing to 11, I might feel differently but since we're racing to 5, I feel these pockets are necessary.
Justin, that is probably the best argument in the post so far (unfortunatly) I was under the impression that the way diamond cut their pockets that it should not affect play, if that is the case, then I would reconsider my vote...
"huge package". Heh heh heh
Golf is another individual player sport where the pros are far far ahead of the average player and make it look easy. And there's a hundred different ways to gamble at it.
Going back to the pocket size comparison, suppose I'm a scratch golfer (yea right!:thumbup
, and I can play on a course set up for the pros. I could play from the normal back tees and probably hold my own....or I can play from the newly-installed pro tees that added another 600 yards and some crazy doglegs, and now I'm looking like a hack. Same course both times, but different setup. Like having the same 9' Diamond table with pro-tight pockets or regular-tight pockets.