14.1 High Runs at on a 7’ Table vs a 9’ Table

[ChrisinNC]

I know this topic has been discussed on here before, but recently I’ve been going for my high runs on a seven footer instead of a nine footer, just to see what I can do. Both tables have 4-1/2” corners.

After about three or four sessions on the seven footer, I’ve found some clear differences for myself, and just curious as to opinions from others on this topic, who have attempted their 14.1 high runs on both.

Of course the biggest difference is there are very few hard shots on a 7 foot table, so I’m finding I have much more shotmaking confidence as opposed to facing a harder shot on a 9 foot table.

Another difference is I’m finding it much easier to set up the standard side of the rack break ball on the 7 foot table, and then of course much easier to execute the break shot successfully. I am finding that leaving my key ball down at the head end of the table seems to work out fine for setting up that break shot angle.

For myself, I am exploding into the rack at a much harder pace on my break shots, since they are easier shots and also so I can spread the balls out good to start with. Even if the cue ball tracks down to the head of the table, I’m not as concerned about leaving a long tough shot, since there are virtually no long shots on a seven footer.

During the course of running out a rack, I’m finding it much easier to break out problem balls/clusters on a seven footer, simply because there’s so much less table surface. I also think it’s easier, if necessary, to bump an object ball in to an ideal side of the rack break location in the course of running out the rack. However because of the smaller table surface, if you’re not careful it’s also easier to get stuck up against an object ball, possibly leaving a very tough shot or no shot. Of course the chance of scratching is increased on the smaller table, particularly on break out shots where you don’t know absolutely where the cue ball is headed.

Bank shots, although virtually never planned when playing 14.1 are not nearly as hard to make on the smaller table when you find yourself in a situation where that’s all you’ve got. Basically the same can be said for combination and carom shots.

When getting down to the last four or five balls in a rack, I’m finding it’s far easier to change your game plan for order of shots if you need to, as it’s so much easier to work the cue ball around the table.

In summary, right now I’m finding it much easier and enjoyable going for a high run on the smaller table, although I realize it’s going to make going back to the bigger table a little tougher. I’ve had a number of high runs in the 40s, but I’m confident that it’s only a matter of time until I can possibly approach a 100 ball run on the seven footer. I’ve come to accept that at my age it is no longer a possibility for me to ever have any chance to run 100 balls on a 9 foot table. Just curious as to thoughts/opinions from others?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Its not close. I'd bet my house if anyone played 100 innings on a 7' table, and 100 innings on a 9' table (lets say both diamonds so the specs are the same), the 7' table would produce more total balls, and higher high runs, by a very large margin.

Here is some data I shared when I did this in 2013:

14.1 - 7' Table vs 9' Table, Statistically Speaking

Summary: A 7' table is significantly easier to play 14.1 on than a 9' table for a C+/B- speed player. Introduction There has been much discussion on what table is easier to play on: 7' vs 9'. John Schmidt has stated a 7' table is easier on several past threads. Others have stated a 9' table...

forums.azbilliards.com

 

[The_JV]

I do find this really interesting. I'm in the camp of the extra congestion being an issue. That said, I'm also a very agressive player and take nearly every chance to disturb the pack. The way I look at it.... I rather know asap what ball I'm saving for the break shot. Until you have that massive cluster broken up, you don't know with any certainty what you need to do to successfully start the next rack.

Sry, a bit off topic. I don't have any 14.1 experience on the 7ft. I only know of one locally that isn't a valley, and it's not in the best position to bother doing anything of consequence on.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I do find this really interesting. I'm in the camp of the extra congestion being an issue. That said, I'm also a very agressive player and take nearly every chance to disturb the pack. The way I look at it.... I rather know asap what ball I'm saving for the break shot. Until you have that massive cluster broken up, you don't know with any certainty what you need to do to successfully start the next rack.

Sry, a bit off topic. I don't have any 14.1 experience on the 7ft. I only know of one locally that isn't a valley, and it's not in the best position to bother doing anything of consequence on.

There are so many more options / opportunities to create an ideal break ball on a 7 foot table, for a player that can control their cue ball well, it’s not that much of a concern as compared to having or creating an ideal break ball on a 9 foot table, if one doesn’t exist after the initial break out shot.

 

[jacob]

I know this topic has been discussed on here before, but recently I’ve been going for my high runs on a seven footer instead of a nine footer, just to see what I can do. Both tables have 4-1/2” corners.

After about three or four sessions on the seven footer, I’ve found some clear differences for myself, and just curious as to opinions from others on this topic, who have attempted their 14.1 high runs on both.

Of course the biggest difference is there are very few hard shots on a 7 foot table, so I’m finding I have much more shotmaking confidence as opposed to facing a harder shot on a 9 foot table.

Another difference is I’m finding it much easier to set up the standard side of the rack break ball on the 7 foot table, and then of course much easier to execute the break shot successfully. I am finding that leaving my key ball down at the head end of the table seems to work out fine for setting up that break shot angle.

For myself, I am exploding into the rack at a much harder pace on my break shots, since they are easier shots and also so I can spread the balls out good to start with. Even if the cue ball tracks down to the head of the table, I’m not as concerned about leaving a long tough shot, since there are virtually no long shots on a seven footer.

During the course of running out a rack, I’m finding it much easier to break out problem balls/clusters on a seven footer, simply because there’s so much less table surface. I also think it’s easier, if necessary, to bump an object ball in to an ideal side of the rack break location in the course of running out the rack. However because of the smaller table surface, if you’re not careful it’s also easier to get stuck up against an object ball, possibly leaving a very tough shot or no shot. Of course the chance of scratching is increased on the smaller table, particularly on break out shots where you don’t know absolutely where the cue ball is headed.

Bank shots, although virtually never planned when playing 14.1 are not nearly as hard to make on the smaller table when you find yourself in a situation where that’s all you’ve got. Basically the same can be said for combination and carom shots.

When getting down to the last four or five balls in a rack, I’m finding it’s far easier to change your game plan for order of shots if you need to, as it’s so much easier to work the cue ball around the table.

In summary, right now I’m finding it much easier and enjoyable going for a high run on the smaller table, although I realize it’s going to make going back to the bigger table a little tougher. I’ve had a number of high runs in the 40s, but I’m confident that it’s only a matter of time until I can possibly approach a 100 ball run on the seven footer. I’ve come to accept that at my age it is no longer a possibility for me to ever have any chance to run 100 balls on a 9 foot table. Just curious as to thoughts/opinions from others?

I agree with everything you have said here. I was not sure if I wanted to post my runs on the 7 ft table on the yearly high run thread or not. I was not sure that they would even be accepted. The main reason I did was to motivate myself to get to 100 on the small table. When that milestone comes, I will celebrate for a minute and then refocus my efforts to 9 ft pool once again.

Playing so much 14.1 has been a nice change to my practice routine. Reaching goals that you set for yourself may be the most rewarding thing about this great game.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I agree with everything you have said here. I was not sure if I wanted to post my runs on the 7 ft table on the yearly high run thread or not. I was not sure that they would even be accepted. The main reason I did was to motivate myself to get to 100 on the small table. When that milestone comes, I will celebrate for a minute and then refocus my efforts to 9 ft pool once again.

Playing so much 14.1 has been a nice change to my practice routine. Reaching goals that you set for yourself may be the most rewarding thing about this great game.

Sounds like you were copying my idea, or is it me copying yours? I’m doing it for the exact same reasons as you stated, and yes, I am going to post my high runs, but I will add in the post that it was accomplished on a 7 foot diamond.

 

[jacob]

Sounds like you were copying my idea, or is it me copying yours? I’m doing it for the exact same reasons as you stated, and yes, I am going to post my high runs, but I will add in the post that it was accomplished on a 7 foot diamond.

I have been trying on a small table for several months. I am frustrated that I have not got to 100 yet. My rotation game has suffered a bit. Making my goals public was meant to be a kick in the rear to motivate me.

I had a ever so close 94 back in early November. Local Covid restrictions from mid November to early January did not allow much practice for me. I had a 71 yesterday. I felt like 100 was within my reach.

I read some good advice on the topic of getting to 100 a few months ago. The advice was that you should not expect a run of 100 until you have run 50 or more a hundred times. I have just been trying to stack up as many runs at or above 50 as possible.

I am thinking about getting a camera to record my attempts. I would like to get the run on film when it happens.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I have been trying on a small table for several months. I am frustrated that I have not got to 100 yet. My rotation game has suffered a bit. Making my goals public was meant to be a kick in the rear to motivate me.

I had a ever so close 94 back in early November. Local Covid restrictions from mid November to early January did not allow much practice for me. I had a 71 yesterday. I felt like 100 was within my reach.

I read some good advice on the topic of getting to 100 a few months ago. The advice was that you should not expect a run of 100 until you have run 50 or more a hundred times. I have just been trying to stack up as many runs at or above 50 as possible.

I am thinking about getting a camera to record my attempts. I would like to get the run on film when it happens.

If I have to run 50 or more 100 times to have any chance at running 100, I am in big trouble! I don’t necessarily agree with that.

I think if the perfect storm hits, I could run 50 straight in to another run of 50, at least that is in my/our mindset how we should approach it. That way the pressure won’t build for us as we get closer to 100 - which I know in reality is impossible.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Jimmy Caras was one of the best of the Mosconi era. He won a world championship before Mosconi, and won what was effectively the world championship after Mosconi had stopped competing. In 1975 I asked him about the relative ease of playing on an 8-foot table. He said that the only way a top play would ever miss on a small table is because he got tired.

If your patterns and short control are such that you can clear 8 balls out of the rack area without hitting a cushion, I think congestion is not an issue for you, and having the balls relatively close together is a plus.

Babe Cranfield remarked that the most impressive run he ever saw was only 60 balls by Greenleaf. During that run the cue ball touched the cushion twice. In contrast, nine ball style 14.1 probably has 100 cushion contacts for 60 balls pocketed.

 

[jacob]

If I have to run 50 or more 100 times to have any chance at running 100, I am in big trouble! I don’t necessarily agree with that.

I think if the perfect storm hits, I could run 50 straight in to another run of 50, at least that is in my/our mindset how we should approach it. That way the pressure won’t build for us as we get closer to 100 - which I know in reality is impossible.

So which accomplishment in your view is more difficult? Running 100 balls once, or running 50 or more one hundred times? Perhaps this should be its own thread. I do not mean to get off topic.

I am 42 years old. I think you can play good enough to be a threat to run one hundred until at least age 60.

How old are you?

 

[ChrisinNC]

So which accomplishment in your view is more difficult? Running 100 balls once, or running 50 or more one hundred times? Perhaps this should be its own thread. I do not mean to get off topic.

I am 42 years old. I think you can play good enough to be a threat to run one hundred until at least age 60.

How old are you?

I’m 64 and fully aware that my pool game / consistency is on the decline. I would take 100 separate 50+ ball runs over a single 100 ball run. Reason being, I know if I can run 50+ that many times, that I can run 100.

 

[gerard soriano]

So which accomplishment in your view is more difficult? Running 100 balls once, or running 50 or more one hundred times? Perhaps this should be its own thread. I do not mean to get off topic.

I am 42 years old. I think you can play good enough to be a threat to run one hundred until at least age 60.

How old are you?

I am insulted by your post(Just Kidding)
I am 59 so I better really enjoy this next year !
I also thought 60 was Old when I was 42

 

[jacob]

I am insulted by your post(Just Kidding)
I am 59 so I better really enjoy this next year !
I also thought 60 was Old when I was 42

Actually I do not think 60 is old. I also said I think you could be good enough to run a hundred until AT LEAST 60. I know of several pro's who have run over a hundred in their 80's. I should have written that if you have never had a hundred ball run in 14.1 it would be very hard to accomplish, for the first time, in your sixties.

Golf is one of my other hobbies. I have ranked shooting your age in golf as one of the hardest things to accomplish in any sport. The youngest person to shoot their age in golf was 59 years old! The oldest person to do it was 103!
Sam Snead once shot his age during a pro event when he was 67. Two days later he beat that with a 66.

I am not sure what is your high run, but your best days may still be ahead of you.

 

[Lynch]

I think this is an interesting thread and I feel like I should respond because I probably have more experience than most playing 14.1 on a 7' diamond. Not that this is something I should be proud of lol, just the way it's worked out. When I first moved to Denver about 7 years ago, I played in a straight pool league for a couple years (Tom Ross even played, but this was after his stroke). We played the bulk of the matches on 9' Diamonds with varying pocket sizes). I really enjoyed this and the handicap system was challenging and fun. In the few sessions I played and a decent amount of practice sessions over a couple years my high run on the 9' diamond was 46. Oddly enough, I broke 40 what felt like 10 times, but maybe it was more like 5 or 7. After reading about other people's high runs, it sounds like this is actually pretty normal. IDK, I did the typical thing where I would realize I was playing well, get excited, and completely sabatoge myself.

After that, I moved to a different location and the room was just too far away to make it from work so I dropped out. Since then, I played in the regular 8 ball leagues on 7' tables, etc and most tourneys were on 7' tables as well, so I've hardly played 14.1 on the big table in the last 5 years and my table at home is 7'. But, in that time, I've played 14.1 on 7' diamonds after league with buddy's at the pool hall and also a lot on my 7' diamond at home. Now, when I play by myself, I'm just going for high runs. On a 7' diamond in that time, I've run 100 once (I know, odd number to hit and if I would have known where I was, I probably would have dogged it) and my next highest run is a 68 and I think I've had 7 runs between 60-68. Now do I think my high run should be a little over twice as much on the 7' diamond (100) compared to the 9' diamond (46), no, but the 7' is without a doubt easier for a mid 600 FR player. I think if I had played on a 9' diamond during the last 5 years the same amount, I would probably have a run of 50-70 on the 9', but that's woulda coulda shoulda. IMO that's about the difference though, that for most, their high run would be about 30-40% more on the 7'. With that being said, at least for myself, even though I've cleared 50 on my 7' diamond probably 30 times, it's not automatic at all. There are way more break shot options on the 7', which is great when you're out of line near the end of the rack, but my god, I think I've scratched on every break shot imaginable numerous times. The side of the rack break shot, it's like the cue ball is wired to scratch in the corner from several angles with high english. I've learned to avoid that, except for just a few angles. With draw or stun those side pockets feel like the ocean and if you're not careful managing clusters and space, I think the opportunity to get frozen to the stack and other balls and not have a shot is much greater on the 7'. So even though the 7' is easier IMO, there are a few traps and pitfalls that can jump up and bite you very quickly and happen maybe even more unexpectedly on the 7' when everything has been smooth sailing. I will admit though, I could probably use a lot of work with shooting breaks shots, so I'm sure much of this is on me, with poor break shot management overall. Shotmaking in general, is obviously much easier on the 7'. I grew up with an 8' table and played a little 14.1 on it later on in life and ran some 40's on it with relative ease and that was after the pockets were shimmed too, so not ideal for 14.1 at all. IMO the 8' is a hair easier than the 7' and the a 9' is much tougher than both a 7' and 8'. I've never played 14.1 on a 10', but my guess is I would have a hell of a time trying to run 20 on that.

One last thing to note on my 100 ball run. I think it's one of my single greatest accomplishments in pool, even though it was on my 7' diamond and not a 9'. With that being said, when I read about people posting runs and how "cleaner" runs seem to be considered in much higher regard, my run had to be about the dirtiest 100 ball run ever. I banked several balls, had to kick at least 2 in, must have played a dozen combos, caroms, and billiards, and some other circus stuff. Part of the reason why I'm so proud of it, was that even though it wasn't clean at all, was how hard I grinded after an amazing shot. I must have been around the 40-50 mark and was frozen to the side of the stack with no shot. I studied the rack for a while to figure out which flier I would ultimately waste my time on and found a complete hail mary that I didn't even think would go. I had to kick uptable, back into the stack into a combo, billiard thing with 4-5 balls all 1/4 inch to 2 inches apart and I thought maybe. I didn't actually think it would go, I just didn't see anything else. On the kick because I was frozen, I had to kick near the corner pocket and bend the ball back with side spin and hit it with enough speed to get the last ball of that strange cluster to go and actually get to the pocket. I hit the shot perfect and I couldn't believe it that the end ball trickled in like I had planned and I had a shot. I washed my hands, stared at myself in the mirror and said you can't let that shot go to waste and see if I can get my high run which was 62 at the time. So I kept grinding and when I counted them up at the end and got to 100, I nearly cried (7 racks of 14 and 2 at the end). At a couple points, I figured I had to be over 62, but tried my best to not think about it and stay in the moment. I'm not sure I'll ever beat it, even though I continue to try. Hopefully, someday I'll be able to spend more time on a 9'. It's fun playing actual matches of 14.1 too, actually a real treat. I don't detour to this part of the forum nearly enough, but I do enjoy the threads here a lot. I will also say, the 14.1 section of AZ has to be the most respectful place on the forum in general. I've also noticed people freely give away fantastic advice on this part of the forum as well. It's probably wouldn't hurt me to take some of it and actually practice it from time to time.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I think this is an interesting thread and I feel like I should respond because I probably have more experience than most playing 14.1 on a 7' diamond. Not that this is something I should be proud of lol, just the way it's worked out. When I first moved to Denver about 7 years ago, I played in a straight pool league for a couple years (Tom Ross even played, but this was after his stroke). We played the bulk of the matches on 9' Diamonds with varying pocket sizes). I really enjoyed this and the handicap system was challenging and fun. In the few sessions I played and a decent amount of practice sessions over a couple years my high run on the 9' diamond was 46. Oddly enough, I broke 40 what felt like 10 times, but maybe it was more like 5 or 7. After reading about other people's high runs, it sounds like this is actually pretty normal. IDK, I did the typical thing where I would realize I was playing well, get excited, and completely sabatoge myself.

After that, I moved to a different location and the room was just too far away to make it from work so I dropped out. Since then, I played in the regular 8 ball leagues on 7' tables, etc and most tourneys were on 7' tables as well, so I've hardly played 14.1 on the big table in the last 5 years and my table at home is 7'. But, in that time, I've played 14.1 on 7' diamonds after league with buddy's at the pool hall and also a lot on my 7' diamond at home. Now, when I play by myself, I'm just going for high runs. On a 7' diamond in that time, I've run 100 once (I know, odd number to hit and if I would have known where I was, I probably would have dogged it) and my next highest run is a 68 and I think I've had 7 runs between 60-68. Now do I think my high run should be a little over twice as much on the 7' diamond (100) compared to the 9' diamond (46), no, but the 7' is without a doubt easier for a mid 600 FR player. I think if I had played on a 9' diamond during the last 5 years the same amount, I would probably have a run of 50-70 on the 9', but that's woulda coulda shoulda. IMO that's about the difference though, that for most, their high run would be about 30-40% more on the 7'. With that being said, at least for myself, even though I've cleared 50 on my 7' diamond probably 30 times, it's not automatic at all. There are way more break shot options on the 7', which is great when you're out of line near the end of the rack, but my god, I think I've scratched on every break shot imaginable numerous times. The side of the rack break shot, it's like the cue ball is wired to scratch in the corner from several angles with high english. I've learned to avoid that, except for just a few angles. With draw or stun those side pockets feel like the ocean and if you're not careful managing clusters and space, I think the opportunity to get frozen to the stack and other balls and not have a shot is much greater on the 7'. So even though the 7' is easier IMO, there are a few traps and pitfalls that can jump up and bite you very quickly and happen maybe even more unexpectedly on the 7' when everything has been smooth sailing. I will admit though, I could probably use a lot of work with shooting breaks shots, so I'm sure much of this is on me, with poor break shot management overall. Shotmaking in general, is obviously much easier on the 7'. I grew up with an 8' table and played a little 14.1 on it later on in life and ran some 40's on it with relative ease and that was after the pockets were shimmed too, so not ideal for 14.1 at all. IMO the 8' is a hair easier than the 7' and the a 9' is much tougher than both a 7' and 8'. I've never played 14.1 on a 10', but my guess is I would have a hell of a time trying to run 20 on that.

One last thing to note on my 100 ball run. I think it's one of my single greatest accomplishments in pool, even though it was on my 7' diamond and not a 9'. With that being said, when I read about people posting runs and how "cleaner" runs seem to be considered in much higher regard, my run had to be about the dirtiest 100 ball run ever. I banked several balls, had to kick at least 2 in, must have played a dozen combos, caroms, and billiards, and some other circus stuff. Part of the reason why I'm so proud of it, was that even though it wasn't clean at all, was how hard I grinded after an amazing shot. I must have been around the 40-50 mark and was frozen to the side of the stack with no shot. I studied the rack for a while to figure out which flier I would ultimately waste my time on and found a complete hail mary that I didn't even think would go. I had to kick uptable, back into the stack into a combo, billiard thing with 4-5 balls all 1/4 inch to 2 inches apart and I thought maybe. I didn't actually think it would go, I just didn't see anything else. On the kick because I was frozen, I had to kick near the corner pocket and bend the ball back with side spin and hit it with enough speed to get the last ball of that strange cluster to go and actually get to the pocket. I hit the shot perfect and I couldn't believe it that the end ball trickled in like I had planned and I had a shot. I washed my hands, stared at myself in the mirror and said you can't let that shot go to waste and see if I can get my high run which was 62 at the time. So I kept grinding and when I counted them up at the end and got to 100, I nearly cried (7 racks of 14 and 2 at the end). At a couple points, I figured I had to be over 62, but tried my best to not think about it and stay in the moment. I'm not sure I'll ever beat it, even though I continue to try. Hopefully, someday I'll be able to spend more time on a 9'. It's fun playing actual matches of 14.1 too, actually a real treat. I don't detour to this part of the forum nearly enough, but I do enjoy the threads here a lot. I will also say, the 14.1 section of AZ has to be the most respectful place on the forum in general. I've also noticed people freely give away fantastic advice on this part of the forum as well. It's probably wouldn't hurt me to take some of it and actually practice it from time to time.

I enjoyed reading your post. I’ve had three runs in the 50s on our 7 foot diamond in the last few weeks, and I feel like 100 is within reach. I’d confirm as you stated, a 42 ball (3 rack) run on a 9 foot diamond is roughly equivalent to a 70 ball (5 rack) run on the 7 foot diamond. Also, since we also have a 10 footer I occasionally practice on, I’d guess a 28 ball (2 rack) run on the 10 footer is roughly the equivalent of at least a 42 ball (3 rack) run on a 9 footer.

I don’t think I have found any practice sessions more frustrating yet also more addicting then attempting a 14.1 high run on a 7 foot table, starting over with a fresh rack break shot every time I miss. 2-3 hours can fly by before you even know it.

Attempting a high run in 14.1 on a seven footer versus on a nine footer are completely different games, with far different issues you have to overcome. On a nine footer it’s all about shotmaking, avoiding long tough shots and planning out your break ball. On a seven footer, if you have a break ball, your shot on the key ball to set up the break shot can be from just about anywhere. The main challenge is managing to get all the balls separated enough to have clear paths to pockets so you can clear the table without the cue ball ending up in positions where you have no shot. There will be numerous shots where you’ll have to break up clusters, where you won’t always be able to control knowing where the cue ball will end up and if you’ll have a shot.

If I was able to get in a 7-8 hour straight through session on the 7 foot Diamond, I’m convinced I could get in stroke enough to have a shot at reaching100, but I never have more than a couple hours at a time to devote to it.

 

[Lynch]

I enjoyed reading your post. I’ve had three runs in the 50s on our 7 foot diamond in the last few weeks, and I feel like 100 is within reach. I’d confirm as you stated, a 42 ball (3 rack) run on a 9 foot diamond is roughly equivalent to a 70 ball (5 rack) run on the 7 foot diamond. Also, since we also have a 10 footer I occasionally practice on, I’d guess a 28 ball (2 rack) run on the 10 footer is roughly the equivalent of at least a 42 ball (3 rack) run on a 9 footer.

I don’t think I have found any practice sessions more frustrating yet also more addicting then attempting a 14.1 high run on a 7 foot table, starting over with a fresh rack break shot every time I miss. 2-3 hours can fly by before you even know it.

If I was able to get in a 7-8 hour straight through session, I’m convinced I could get in stroke enough to reach my 100, but I never have more than a couple hours at a time to devote to it.

When I first start a session, I'll do a whole rack with the break shot and if I miss prior to the end of the rack, I'll usually start over. After a couple tries if I can't run all the way out, I'll just start from wherever I miss. So I have a lot of runs starting with a random number on the first rack. Same thing if I run a 20, 30, or whatever, after I miss many times, I'll just start the run from there. Probably part of the reason why I think my break shots need some work is because I'm too lazy to continue setting them up and actually work on them! Yes, it can be addicting for sure and I absolutely hate starting over after a nice run. I know there's many other threads on this, so I'm not really trying to start a whole John Schmidt thing here, but thinking about him starting over and over again. I mean, to run a 100, 200, 300, 400 plus balls, make a simple or bad mistake or whatever, and then to have to mentally reset and start over, would have to be brutal. I run 30 or 40 balls, miss, and when I restart, I would say at least half the time it's really hard for me to refocus again. I'll start skipping parts of my pre-shot routine, etc. and then if I can actually get past about 20 or so, then I start feeling invested again and bear down. 14.1 is so good for concentration, but is so humbling to me and makes me feel mentally weak. On occasion, I can bear down from time to time in a good way and am not white knuckling it, where a miss is imminent, but I would say it's not the norm for me. I have a tremendous amount of respect for people that can run lots of balls, maintain concentration, always follow their pre-shot routine, and then after a miss, pick up the pieces, start over, and not get lazy.

 

[The_JV]

So which accomplishment in your view is more difficult? Running 100 balls once, or running 50 or more one hundred times? Perhaps this should be its own thread. I do not mean to get off topic.

I couldn't tell you how many runs I have i the 50s. Definitely have not done it 100 times. That said I'd trade all the 50s I do have for a high run 1 ball better then my max of 127....lol.

I don't play competitively though. Consistency really doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Dan White]

Babe Cranfield remarked that the most impressive run he ever saw was only 60 balls by Greenleaf. During that run the cue ball touched the cushion twice. In contrast, nine ball style 14.1 probably has 100 cushion contacts for 60 balls pocketed.

LOL. Well I guess straight pool games are now "races to 150" instead of "150 point matches" due to 9 ball so maybe they should start to record the "RPI" index, which is rails per inning.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... so maybe they should start to record the "RPI" index, which is rails per inning.

I think that would actually be an interesting measure. It would give a rough indication of cue ball travel.

I did a study of average shot difficulty a long time ago in which I would note the difficulty of each shot in matches to 150. It included a way to assign a number to each shot based on how accurate the cuing had to be to make the shot. The result was that the player who consistently faced the easiest shots was Irving Crane. (1970s) I imagine that Mosconi would have been quite a bit better on that measure -- he was very proud of how he had tightened up position play relative to the other players. And Greenleaf would have had a hard time getting only two cushion contacts in his run if he had a lot of long shots.

 

[The_JV]

maybe they should start to record the "RPI" index, which is rails per inning.

I think that would actually be an interesting measure. It would give a rough indication of cue ball travel.

That would be very interesting... Speaking solely for myself. I found that 14.1 was hurting my stroke when playing rotation. I blame the traditional "ticky tack" method of controlling the CB that I was trying to emulate. Rolling and stunning into position for the next shot.

The most major adjustment I made was stroking harder and using more rails for shape. Didn't necessarily make anything harder or easier, but it did keep my arm in tune for stronger shots.