High Run Equivalency between a 9' and 10' table?

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just curious what 14.1 players here who have had the opportunity to play on both 9-foot and 10-foot tables would estimate the high run equivalency would be between the two tables, with identical sized pockets on both tables?

My estimate from my personal experience would be almost 2-to-1 as tough on the big table, meaning a 50 ball run on the 10-footer is just as hard and impressive as a 100 ball run on a 9-footer, or a 2 rack 28 ball run is as impressive on a 10-footer as a 4 rack 56 ball run on the 9-footer.

Does anyone know offhand the differences in the high run or better yet the average of the top 10 high runs in the DCC straight pool challenge in the years they played it on the 10-foot table as compared to the years they played it on the 9-foot table?

I practice 14.1 on both sized tables in my poolroom, although we've only had the 10-footer for only about 1 year. Both tables have Diamond tour pocket specs. I'm finding it extremely hard to get past 2 racks (28 balls) on the 10-footer, whereas I've had 3-5 rack runs on the 9-footer numerous times.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just checked the DCC website, under the straight challenge high runs in past years. The numbers appear to confirm my thoughts.

2013 was the only year they used a 10-foot table, I assume a Diamond Smart table with tour cut pocket specs, and it was won by Stuart Pettman, a snooker player, with a high run of 117. No information was given as to the next highest run, so there's a chance he may have been the only player that cracked the 100 mark.

In the 4 years since then, the high run has averaged 222 per year - just slightly less than double the 117.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I think Arthur Cranfield’s 420 on a 5x10 will stand as long as Willie’s 526 on a 4x8.
George Fels reported that Arthur had plenty of witnesses.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... 2013 was the only year they used a 10-foot table, I assume a Diamond Smart table with tour cut pocket specs, and it was won by Stuart Pettman, a snooker player, with a high run of 117. No information was given as to the next highest run, so there's a chance he may have been the only player that cracked the 100 mark.

In the 4 years since then, the high run has averaged 222 per year - just slightly less than double the 117.

Pettman also had the second highest run in 2013, an even 100. No one else made it to 100 on the 10-footers.

This past year (2017) 17 players ran 100 or more on the 9-footers, with 37 such runs in total.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I think Arthur Cranfield’s 420 on a 5x10 will stand as long as Willie’s 526 on a 4x8.
George Fels reported that Arthur had plenty of witnesses.
I would say Cranfield's 420 on a 5x10 is far and away more impressive than Mosconi's 526 on a 4x8. Too bad he doesn't get much credit for it.
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
I think Arthur Cranfield’s 420 on a 5x10 will stand as long as Willie’s 526 on a 4x8.
George Fels reported that Arthur had plenty of witnesses.

Most all of the 5x10 tables were 4.75 in Cranfield's era. I have access to a 5x10 ( with shallow shelf 4.75 sized pockets). Less congestion than the 9ft, but more long ball shots, the 5x10 is the way to go but the bar room or nine ft. player will need to become more keen on center ball.
 

Positively Ralf

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would say Cranfield's 420 on a 5x10 is far and away more impressive than Mosconi's 526 on a 4x8. Too bad he doesn't get much credit for it.

I have Cranfield's The Straight Pool Bible and I happened to meet up with Larry, the guy who knew him very well and we played some. I know there isn't much info about Cranfield out there, but I think he gets overlooked by so many. The guy sounded like a 14.1 genius.
 

9andout

Gunnin' for a 3 pack!!
Silver Member
I have Cranfield's The Straight Pool Bible and I happened to meet up with Larry, the guy who knew him very well and we played some. I know there isn't much info about Cranfield out there, but I think he gets overlooked by so many. The guy sounded like a 14.1 genius.

Just starting my 14.1 journey.
I have Cranfield's book.
Enjoying searching through this forum for change.
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
9' vs 10'

As far as your inquiry bout if both tables had the same sized pockets I am still getting to know this table. Bottom line is on the ten ft - often after the break the possible break ball appears quickly as there is less congestion. I would have to venture a guess that pockets sizes being equal - the ten footer would be more difficult. But I don't want to limit any of my possible future high runs, as I said before this is a great table and I think I can hit three centuries or more on it. When I competed in Dcc on those ten ft tables with snug pockets it was difficult as I was not used to the extra space. I am learning more bout staying in the center now that I have access to this fully restored beautiful Brunswick arcade (ball return). It does have 760 simonis however, it's almost perfect.
 
Last edited:

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have Cranfield's The Straight Pool Bible and I happened to meet up with Larry, the guy who knew him very well and we played some. I know there isn't much info about Cranfield out there, but I think he gets overlooked by so many. The guy sounded like a 14.1 genius.

I have heard that he was the best 14.1 practice player.
tournament play not so good.
Maybe a little canine there.
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
Cranfield

I have heard that he was the best 14.1 practice player.
tournament play not so good.
Maybe a little canine there.

I don't doubt any of the claims about Cranfield's accomplishments, it's true that some are better than others when competing vs practicing. I would add that at the top level there are many elusive ways that the player who has heavy sponsors can make there player look like the best in competition. If Cranfield has the top run on a 5x10 then it should stand as the official high run of his era, to my knowledge there is nothing they can do to sabotage a player who shuts out all the distractions that others can cleverly disguise as accidents that happen to the dark horse. I doubt anyone will respond but is there any footage of Cranfield? If so I would like to check it out.

Here are some examples of the most common tings' that have happened to me while competing at a huge event (out in public). When they know you don't care for the loud music they turn it up a notch against home town favorite, sabotaging your drink, moving loud neighbors into the room next to you where your staying. doctoring the table - where it forces one player to break to a certain pocket or it's curtains, and of course the popular techno cell phone shark, and special favors. The perps (underground gambling syndicates) who commit these acts pride themselves on being able to influence a situation (play God), this is unfortunate but all too familiar for some of us. This is why I say that if a player runs many racks in an environment free of any distractions it should never be discredited. In Snooker they will not allow this to happen, there escorted out before they can say jimeny cricket. So my main point here is the nerves are not always the problem. ssl - but relevant.
 
Last edited:

Positively Ralf

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Iirc, I think the only footage out there is from the old ESPN legends of pocket billiards series. He played mosconi but cranfield looked like he wasn't very much into it. I can't find it now but I'm positive it is still up on YouTube.
 

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Iirc, I think the only footage out there is from the old ESPN legends of pocket billiards series. He played mosconi but cranfield looked like he wasn't very much into it. I can't find it now but I'm positive it is still up on YouTube.

I've seen that video.
Cranfield was sweating and looked uncomfortable and played bad.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've seen that video.
Cranfield was sweating and looked uncomfortable and played bad.
I don't think that's much of a measurement of a player, that many years past his prime. Some pro players are able to maintain a fairly high level of play well in to their 60s and even in to their 70s and 80s (Ray Martin for example).
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
As far as your inquiry bout if both tables had the same sized pockets I am still getting to know this table. Bottom line is on the ten ft - often after the break the possible break ball appears quickly as there is less congestion. I would have to venture a guess that pockets sizes being equal - the ten footer would be more difficult. But I don't want to limit any of my possible future high runs, as I said before this is a great table and I think I can hit three centuries or more on it. When I competed in Dcc on those ten ft tables with snug pockets it was difficult as I was not used to the extra space. I am learning more bout staying in the center now that I have access to this fully restored beautiful Brunswick arcade (ball return). It does have 760 simonis however, it's almost perfect.
Danny, I hope you'll follow up with us on this post after you've had plenty of opportunity to adjust your 14.1 game to the 10 foot table, to compare the difficulty in achieving high runs between the 9 and 10 foot tables.

I plan to try your advice of sticking to centerball as much as I can when I shooting longer shots on our 10-footer. I've found it very frustrating at times when comparing my shotmaking to our 9-foot tables with the same sized pockets. Maybe I can get better results with your advice - it makes perfect sense.
 

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't think that's much of a measurement of a player, that many years past his prime. Some pro players are able to maintain a fairly high level of play well in to their 60s and even in to their 70s and 80s (Ray Martin for example).

It was just an observation not a an opinion of his skill at that point in time.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It was just an observation not a an opinion of his skill at that point in time.
Understood, I was just making that point. I watched the Mosconi vs Cranfield Legends video last night after reading the recent comments in this thread. At the time of this event, Cranfield was 61 and Mosconi was 63. It was sad to see how both players played, particularly Cranfield, compared to how these players played the game in their prime. I don't think Cranfield pocketed more than a few balls in a row for the entire session. Mosconi's stroke was hard to watch - jerking to the left with his cue and moving his head/body on his follow through, causing him to miss some fairly easy shots.

Watching these guys actually made me feel better about how my game has held up compared to my prime, as I'm now 61. Although I never played the game anywhere near the professional level that these legends did, I'd like to think my my stroke has not deteriorated nearly as much as these two had, compared to my/their prime.

Of course, when judging their games and their strokes in this event, we consider the pressure these guys were under, being in a nationally televised tournament for likely the first time in many, many years. Under different conditions, I'm sure they both would have looked and played a lot better.
 
Top