Derby City Bigfoot
- Thread starter jax_joe
- Start date
not sure what you mean. they were livestreamed yesterday, full length, and still available on xpool
Sorry, I meant without a subscription, as on YouTube. Not necessarily right away, but at some point in the not too distant future.
Incompetence. That 10 footers cause more misses is symptomatic of improper technique and application. To me the easier part is the real estate; sprawling landing zones.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Yes, I play on one twice a month on average. It's quite expensive though. Well, compared to my usual hall where I barely pay a thing. A couple of times a month I will go to the other side of the river and play with a friend. Usually 10ball, but occasionally 9ball. It's convenient, as my GF works in the building across the road, so we usually get dinner after.
Won a bit of money on that table. It's a Diamond with the (I wanna say cherry) vibrant wood finish. I like that the hall uses the classic Aramith balls, and the cloth is powder blue Simonis. Makes a nice change from Dynaspheres or black aramiths and CPBA at my local.
I've posted a few pictures of it on the forum before.
Technically, it's pretty much the same game. But lines feel easier to see, both potting and position play. The downside is that controlling speed is harder. There's more space to navigate the table but the familiarity with 9ft has you running out of position until you adjust. The 10ft table also has bigger pockets. I personally find the 10ft table much easier to play than 9ft. Did take some head scratching to get my 10ball break working, I made a thread about that here before prior to a cash game I played.
Hmmm, interesting discussion. I absolutely believe 9 ball on a 10-foot table is more difficult. And while I have not played a lot of 10 ball, I do recall more clusters being an issue playing 10 ball on a 9-foot table. So maybe 10 ball is easier than 9 ball on a 10 footer.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
I cannot speak for everyone, only my own experience. I generally find the 10ft table to be easier for both games. But then my usual table is a Rasson Accura, Ox or Wolf with 4" corners.
I found (and still find) that my 10ball break took a lot of adjusting for me to figure out on the 10ft, takes longer to find it on the extended playing surface than on a 9ft, but besides that, the biggest issue is finding the speed of the table. Somedays I am right on the money, somedays it takes a few racks, or worse, you think you have it and totally F an important ball. My 9ball break works with little adjustment, but there is no box marked on the table and we break from the rail.
The break is something that may not concern hobbyists much (me too) but it's absolutely a functional concern.
Player wise it would average out that way. I have no such player concern. You hit a shot, it keeps going and finishes itself.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
I see your point Jay, and of course you are much better informed than I could ever hope to be.
In my experience, I found 10ft much more comfortable. Maybe it is snooker background? Maybe it is a result of the type of 9ft tables I play on? Maybe there is an optimum playing surface area for difficulty of rotation games?
back to the point of the thread, I enjoy watching it, I wouldn't pay for it though.
Last edited:
I own a 10' table, thats why I asked. You may be the only person who has ever said a 10' is easier than a 9'
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
That's awesome, certainly jealous.
I would say it's a mixed consensus on the considered difficulty where I live. But to be honest, the 10ft is not used to its full potential here. They will likely get rid of it soon. Many preferring to play on 9ft Rassons. Personally, I think it would be a terrible business decision, and they could set it up as a stream/challenge table.
My table had 4 1/16 to 4 1/8 pockets although they were cut to accept balls hit down the rail instead of spitting them out like diamonds and shimmed GC's. I hate that its in storage
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
That sounds like an interesting table to play on! I think that perhaps the other factors, such as; the rails, cloth, pocket size/depth/facing, all likely contribute to why this 10ft table feels easier than the tables I usually play on.
Hopefully the situation allows you to get it out and get some games soon.
In the late Sixties I had the chance to play regularly on 5x10’s.
No, they are not easier than 4.5x9’s.
You very rarely have the chance to play stop-ball position. You’re always having to GET position.
In his autobiography, Mosconi talks about the very long string of exhibitions he and Greenleaf played, something like one hundred and fifty exhibitions. Greenleaf was meant to be the draw and Mosconi the competitive sparring partner. I’m going to guess that, given the time, a fair number of those exhibitions would have been on 5x10’s. Mosconi describes how, at the beginning of the series, he did a lot of sitting and watching. (That changed as the series got to its later phase.) While doing that sitting, Mosconi watched Greenleaf’s technique, and the principal thing he learned was that Greenleaf played position to get much closer than other players to the next object ball. I wonder if that was part of playing on a 5x10.
No, they are not easier than 4.5x9’s.
You very rarely have the chance to play stop-ball position. You’re always having to GET position.
In his autobiography, Mosconi talks about the very long string of exhibitions he and Greenleaf played, something like one hundred and fifty exhibitions. Greenleaf was meant to be the draw and Mosconi the competitive sparring partner. I’m going to guess that, given the time, a fair number of those exhibitions would have been on 5x10’s. Mosconi describes how, at the beginning of the series, he did a lot of sitting and watching. (That changed as the series got to its later phase.) While doing that sitting, Mosconi watched Greenleaf’s technique, and the principal thing he learned was that Greenleaf played position to get much closer than other players to the next object ball. I wonder if that was part of playing on a 5x10.
You gotta add a grain of demostration powder so who knows. I remember reading somewhere Greenleaf favored the side pocket break. This may simply mean he wouldn't go out of his way to avoid it. So it came up in his runs - uh, more.
As far as ease of use, it still depends heavily on how the player applies his play. One truth I come away with regarding 10 and 12 foot snooker tables is the real estate where you don't have to jack up is major; both landing area and comfort based consistency wise.
Oh yeah, and the breaks; still a mystery to me.
Of course going from these to pool tables - even tight ones is a joke; except of course for the increasing jacked up zones.
Last edited:
If you Google “Ralph Greenleaf” up pops a photo from Getty Images of Greenleaf playing a side pocket break shot. (That’s you.) And he is so close to the object ball that he is liable to foul. (That’s Mosconi.) And the table is a 5x10.
On getting jacked up, or avoiding it, Mosconi seemed to me very intent the two times i saw him 1.) not to have the cue ball near a rail and 2.) to try to play position to a place from which he could take his normal both-feet-on-the-floor stance. He frequently stopped and checked where and HOW he would be standing on the next shot before he lined up on the shot at hand.
Did not know this. Thanks for the research.
LOL, that's like saying that 9 foot pool is easier than a barbox because there's so much more room. A 10 foot blue label diamond is my favorite table but it's not easier than playing on a 9 footer...