I like Earl’s new insanity.

mnorwood

mnorwood

Moon
Silver Member
The other day I saw a reel where Earl talked about out how he thinks the pro game should be on a 12x6. I have always liked the idea of a bigger table. That got me to thinking. Could you buy a 12x6 snooker table and put pool table rails on it? Does any rail manufacturer have lengths of rubber long enough. Also would simonis provide a rip of cloth to fit a 12 footer.
 
I cannot imagine more than a very very few pool rooms would stock even one of these. Can you imagine APA leagues in a 12 x 6 table???

GFL with that. Earl must have become more Earl than ever!!

I have a ton of respect for him but this is a no way!
 
Earl has talked about snooker "protecting" its better players and pool not doing so. This certainly resonates with me as I know that I (and probably many players on this forum) that we have a chance against a pro or elite amateur in a (very) short race but close to zero chance in a long race. This just doesn't happen in snooker. Tougher equipment widens this gap even more. But this isn't really the point and is why the game has long races (yes 7 is long - well to most people anyway, not to those who think pool is only valid when someone is racing SVB to 120)

What I find interesting is that the same guy who wanted 4 pocket (corner only) tables then proceeded to lose on them when it happened, and in this situation:


he didn't run out when he first had ball in hand - I'm not convinced his play would be any better on a 12' table. He should stick to what he does best and try to keep up as much as he can in his later years (Efren never complains about anything, well not that I've seen or heard - and if he does it never causes a media blow up or even a spark).

I've heard countless stories of how Earl is a really nice guy off the table. I buy that but I don't buy nice guy in general. Angle shooters exist in the world of pool and always will and almost everybody can't stand them. It shouldn't be tolerated in the pro game. The world of pool is a better place now that Earl doesn't appear much in it - he's gone from being one of only 2 people who transcended the sport to an interesting footnote in the record books.
 
I had a 12’ snooker table at home for 7 yrs., until I couldn’t take it anymore and replaced it with a 9’ pool table. Absolutely love snooker but gave up playing it full time, too much work and already have a job.

e4ed292df413f109d7fd6efc4cc3c06f.jpeg



Occasionally played 8 ball on it with full size pool balls. Lots of fun, safety play was a big factor, balls barely fit in the opening.

Pro pool on 6x12? Interesting idea but maybe just play snooker?

Snooker on the snooker table made more sense in the end!

I have a photo of Eva playing on what appears to be a 8x16 or 9x18 table in Australia or something? No idea why or where but looked like a hoot!

0c8f59de9c5fd7a878f3eda4c324cfb2.jpeg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
d0674a3425aa061230d49dad043222f2.jpeg
 
Last edited:
mnorwood said:
Does any rail manufacturer have lengths of rubber long enough. Also would simonis provide a rip of cloth to fit a 12 footer.
Click to expand...
Cloth for sure, most likely rails. Simonis bolts comes in 66" and 78" widths. [6 foot table = 72" wide, so 78" works.] They make rails long enough for carom tables, and you could cut the 10' side down to fit a 12 footer. I'm pretty sure Artemis makes a k55 that long. No idea about superspeed.

-td
 
I feel it would be a great table to play on and I'm surprised all of the people who are so quick to cut sown those of us who don't have access to tables larger than the "Bar Boxes " would be singing praises to the idea !

Would it be a tough table to play on probably so but I personally have always enjoyed a challenge !
 
Quesports said:
I cannot imagine more than a very very few pool rooms would stock even one of these. Can you imagine APA leagues in a 12 x 6 table???

GFL with that. Earl must have become more Earl than ever!!

I have a ton of respect for him but this is a no way!
Click to expand...
The leveling would be paramount. I've played in a few bars where I almost made a ball on the lag...And those were bar-boxes!
😱😂
 
let's not forget that the game played should be placement pool. meaning the balls are placed out equally for each player to run out. the other player is sitting on a chair behind a curtain

if you add up all earl's ideas about how the game should be played it would be both unwatchable and unplayable
 
straightline said:
You could cut snooker pockets to pool specs. Use the same aperture even; just back cut the facings a little.
Click to expand...

You could. However, the main difference between snooker and pool, other than the pocket cuts is the cushion profile. Snooker rubbers have square noses, while pool rubber have pointed noses. This makes a huge difference when it comes to spin. Snooker cushions react a lot less to spin and speed differences when it comes to bank angles. Snooker rails are also too low for pool balls. It's playable, but not correct. Balls will jump with hard shots, unless you raise the rail somehow.

I've played a lot of pool on snooker tables and also Chinese 8 ball on those specific tables. Chinese 8 ball is at least two times better than 8 ball on a snooker table. They're not the same games. 9 ball on a snooker table is just stupid IMO. It's not as much about the small pockets or even the rails (though that is IMO more important), the games are just not right for that size of table. Straight pool is also ridiculously difficult. A whole summer of playing and I barely got past two racks. I'd love to one day play pool on a 5 by 10 proper pool table, but pool on a snooker table is not anything I'd recommend. Earl should just shut up and play snooker. The snooker rules, balls and other equipment have just been optimized for the 6 by 12 and they're close to perfect. Playing pool games would eventually either lead to drastic changes in how the games are played, or extensive rule changes.
 
Last edited:
Swighey said:
Earl has talked about snooker "protecting" its better players and pool not doing so. This certainly resonates with me as I know that I (and probably many players on this forum) that we have a chance against a pro or elite amateur in a (very) short race but close to zero chance in a long race. This just doesn't happen in snooker. Tougher equipment widens this gap even more. But this isn't really the point and is why the game has long races (yes 7 is long - well to most people anyway, not to those who think pool is only valid when someone is racing SVB to 120)

What I find interesting is that the same guy who wanted 4 pocket (corner only) tables then proceeded to lose on them when it happened, and in this situation:


he didn't run out when he first had ball in hand - I'm not convinced his play would be any better on a 12' table. He should stick to what he does best and try to keep up as much as he can in his later years (Efren never complains about anything, well not that I've seen or heard - and if he does it never causes a media blow up or even a spark).

I've heard countless stories of how Earl is a really nice guy off the table. I buy that but I don't buy nice guy in general. Angle shooters exist in the world of pool and always will and almost everybody can't stand them. It shouldn't be tolerated in the pro game. The world of pool is a better place now that Earl doesn't appear much in it - he's gone from being one of only 2 people who transcended the sport to an interesting footnote in the record books.
Click to expand...
Go listen to the whole interview. It we just on the Ice mans podcast. He didnt say he could compete on it. In fact in the interview he very clearly said his time has passed many times. He has no break and can’t compete anymore because with age his nerves are shot. Father Time never loses. Watch the interview before you make wild judgments. I would bet earl is still a better human then you are disrespecting a living legend.
 
Last edited:
Straightpool_99 said:
You could. However, the main difference between snooker and pool, other than the pocket cuts is the cushion profile. Snooker rubbers have square noses, while pool rubber have pointed noses. This makes a huge difference when it comes to spin. Snooker cushions react a lot less to spin and speed differences when it comes to bank angles. Snooker rails are also too low for pool balls. It's playable, but not correct. Balls will jump with hard shots, unless you raise the rail somehow.

I've played a lot of pool on snooker tables and also Chinese 8 ball on those specific tables. Chinese 8 ball is at least two times better than 8 ball on a snooker table. They're not the same games. 9 ball on a snooker table is just stupid IMO. It's not as much about the small pockets or even the rails (though that is IMO more important), the games are just not right for that size of table. Straight pool is also ridiculously difficult. A whole summer of playing and I barely got past two racks. I'd love to one day play pool on a 5 by 10 proper pool table, but pool on a snooker table is not anything I'd recommend. Earl should just shut up and play snooker. The snooker rules, balls and other equipment have just been optimized for the 6 by 12 and they're close to perfect. Playing pool games would eventually either lead to drastic changes in how the games are played, or extensive rule changes.
Click to expand...
I once frequented a room that ran a regular golf ring-game on a 10’ (Brunswick) snooker table, using pool balls. Very entertaining. It obviously had standard billiard cloth also, as British style directional cloth (typical for 12’ tables) would have been noticeable. I can imagine how frustrating that game would have been on an English 12 footer (over-hitting to beat the slow roll-off, with the result of balls bobbling out of the pockets or leaping the rails).😁
 
Straightpool_99 said:
You could. However, the main difference between snooker and pool, other than the pocket cuts is the cushion profile. Snooker rubbers have square noses, while pool rubber have pointed noses. This makes a huge difference when it comes to spin. Snooker cushions react a lot less to spin and speed differences when it comes to bank angles. Snooker rails are also too low for pool balls. It's playable, but not correct. Balls will jump with hard shots, unless you raise the rail somehow.

I've played a lot of pool on snooker tables and also Chinese 8 ball on those specific tables. Chinese 8 ball is at least two times better than 8 ball on a snooker table. They're not the same games. 9 ball on a snooker table is just stupid IMO. It's not as much about the small pockets or even the rails (though that is IMO more important), the games are just not right for that size of table. Straight pool is also ridiculously difficult. A whole summer of playing and I barely got past two racks. I'd love to one day play pool on a 5 by 10 proper pool table, but pool on a snooker table is not anything I'd recommend. Earl should just shut up and play snooker. The snooker rules, balls and other equipment have just been optimized for the 6 by 12 and they're close to perfect. Playing pool games would eventually either lead to drastic changes in how the games are played, or extensive rule changes.
Click to expand...
I get all that. It's still not given there is a way to play this or that game. It's pool; not Mozart. Pfft even Mozart is subject to the law of apes.

I'll concede that in all the cumulative year or two I spent on various American and authentic snooker tables, I never cared, much less noticed, how the cushions varied. The differences were set. The weather stripping seemed faster. (which I liked). The priorities were marksmanship not pinpoint position - which I'd add, was conveniently corralled into railless speed control. The premise was always RnD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top