Now you're switching up and making the pockets the same...LOL the 7ft is easier to make long shots on but is terrible for clusters. It's also horrible to play 14.1 on a 7ft because of that very reason.
When is a pool pocket too tight?
- Thread starter Straightpool_99
- Start date
Now you're switching up and making the pockets the same...LOL the 7ft is easier to make long shots on but is terrible for clusters. It's also horrible to play 14.1 on a 7ft because of that very reason.
And the 8ft had stock 5 1/2" corner pockets!
Dallas West, straight pool, 429 balls (according to Mark Wilson, Dallas West had three runs of 400 or more balls on 5x10 tables)
Look it up!!!!
Why would I look it up?
It's still not 526.
Should we look up some 600-ball claim on 9-footer too.
Should we look up the 14 to 17 racks of 9-ball on bar boxes too?
Hey, maybe 20 pages more arguing coming right up.
Are you trying to pick a fight with me Joey??
High Runs For The Men
600 Plus
PLAYER HIGH RUN
Arthur Babe Cranfield 768 in practice
Tom Parker 642 as told to Dick Leonard
Michael Eufemia 626
No one saw the run from beginning to end, except for Eufemia himself. According to Billiards Digest historian Mike Shamos, this is one of the reasons his record has never been granted official status!
Irving Crane set the exhibition record of 309 on a 10-footer in 1939. Mosconi tied it in 1945. [Info from Mosconi's autobiography.]
But here is a list that includes an item about Babe Cranfield running 420 on a 10-footer and Dallas West (as Glen mentioned) running 400 or more 3 times (including a 429): http://www.thehypertexts.com/Pool Billiards record high runs.htm
My personal experience of practicing on 14.1 on a 7-foot table vs a 9-foot table, same size pockets, is that because I'm used to playing 14.1 on a 9-foot table, having more room to work with for my CB positioning zones and runout patterns, it's much easier for me to run 2-3 racks on the 9-footer than on the 7-footer.
Especially on a fast table playing 7-footer (Diamond Smart w Andy cloth), if you miss your desired position just by an inch or two, it may change your entire angle for getting on the next shot or may possibly even hook you from even seeing that shot. You are working in such tight quarters for your position, that I find it quite tricky. I guess if I did it more, I'd get used to it.
Yes I switched it up. What is your opinion for this specific question. You didn’t answer it.
7’ vs 9’ table. Pocket size and everything else the same. Game is 14.1 exclusively. Which table will have a higher number of points made, in the same inning attempts? Enough attempts to make it statistically valid.
Are you not reading what others have posted? The 9ft is easier, and therefore more balls made at the end of 100 innings.
Most of you here could care less, but just for the heck of it, since our poolroom has a 7', 9', and 10' table, all with 4-1/2" corners, when I get a chance sometime within the next week, I'm going to conduct a very unscientific experiment, and I'll try to get a few of our better players to participate as well: We'll shoot 20 spot shots on each table - 10 from each side. I will post back the results of the total number of spot shots made on each different size table, for the various players that participate.
I'm just guessing for myself, I'll make 80%-90% on the 7' table, 60%-70% on the 9' table, and likely less than 50% on the 10' table. As I don't play ring games, I absolutely never practice or shoot spot shots anymore, so it's not like it's a shot I ever practice.
Don't know if it will make a difference if we start on the 7' table and work our way up, or start on the 10' and work our way down, so I may try it twice, once each way, to see if there is any difference. Like I said, extremely unscientific, but I'm just curious of the results.
I only read the first and last page or two of the thread, sorry. Ha ha.
I would empty out on this bet. Seriously.
I’d even pay up by saying diamond rails bounce better than GC rails
That’s how confident I am that 14-1 is easier on a 7’ table compared to a 9’ table, all other conditions being equal.I only read the first and last page or two of the thread, sorry. Ha ha.
I would empty out on this bet. Seriously.
I’d even pay up by saying diamond rails bounce better than GC rails
its ok, RKC wouldn't bet. he just accepts charity hand outs,
feel free to donate to the old man
lol
Haven't read the thread but it's pretty obvious, anything less than 2 1/4" w standard balls won't work.
No need to thank me :thumbup:
No need to thank me :thumbup:
I only read the first and last page or two of the thread, sorry. Ha ha.
I would empty out on this bet. Seriously.
I’d even pay up by saying diamond rails bounce better than GC rails
Go ahead, find out...LOL
I'm sure we could find something to bet on....how about arm wrestling?....LOL
That's not a good test, as the distance between the cue ball and object balls are not a position shot, but rather a single test shot, so yes the 7' will be easier, then the 8' then the 9ft. What's that shot got to do with trying to play 14.1 on a 7ft, or a 9ft, or a 10ft?
My point is that the average (mean) shot on a 10' table is from a longer distance than on a 9' table and so on, down to a 7' table. Of course a spot shot is longer, just like every other comparable shot from every part of the table is a longer shot on a bigger table.
Obviously we will never agree on this. Just thought the experiment on spot shots on all 3 tables different sized tables in to the same size pockets would be interesting.
The distance between the cue ball and object ball is subject to the players ability to control the cue ball for position play, want to test my statement? Shoot the spot shots on all 3 size tables, but keep the cue ball with in 4' of the ball spotted, let the longer playing surface be between the object ball and the corner pocket....then, lets see what you find out!!!