There seems to be a lot of discussion (opinions/arguments/feelings) about the bar box being responsible for either the demise of pool as we have known it to be, or a savior of keeping the game alive - primarily, if not exclusively, for the league players and bar patrons. Depending on which side of the argument one is on.
Anyone can spin the arguments both for or against the 7' table in either direction depending on how they feel at the time, but I'd like to present a way for everyone to see just how the 7' tables COMPARE to the 8', 8' PRO and the beloved 9'ers - in a way that we as players actually and truly "should" compare them....(my opinion only of course).....by how much room we have to maneuver the cue ball around a given table with other balls still present upon it.
One of the typical arguments I hear (again, from a player's "playing" perspective and not a club owner and their revenue perspective) is on tables size or area vs another.
So, just for fun.....here is that chart.
SORRY - the chart is below
Looking at the chart (below that compares SIZES), one can surmise that an 8' table is 27% larger than a 7' table and similarly, a 9' table is a whopping 67% larger than a 7' table - based on surface area only of each table. Other comparisons from one table to another can be garnered from the chart in a similar fashion - just numbers of course.
I think one of the most realistic comparison criteria when discussing table size comparisons isn't so much the total area available like the chart above shows, but one that tells us how much ROOM we have to move the cue ball around on the table amongst the balls still setting on the play field. That's coming up...
What DOES NOT CHANGE is the fact we use 2.25" balls on each of the table sizes listed above, and when a table is crowded - caused by either a large number of total balls on a given table or a smaller space - it makes the game more challenging to master the 2nd most important physical skill in pocket billiard games: maneuving the cue ball where you want it for the next shot. After all, anyone can "pocket a ball" - but a good player can pocket a ball AND position the cue ball for their intended next shot - and it's much harder on a crowded, smaller table. Most will agree with that I'll assume.
But how much different are they really - other than size - and square inches?
The interesting chart below tells how many 2.25" balls can fit at any one time on a given playing surface, based on the general size. For example, 644 balls will fit on a 7' table if they are placed as if racked - called hexagonally - with no spaces between them. Tightly packed. Square spacing is how they would have to be placed as they come in a box of balls - side by side - with a lot of space around them. At the very least, it's eye opening. Somewhat surprising even to those that have not entertained the idea or question before. Like guessing how many jelly beans are in that jar over in the kitchen. A small wager to be won perhaps.
This last chart below shows how much larger one table is compared to another based on how many balls will fit upon the playing surface at any time with minimal distance between them - again, hexagonally - giving (I believe) a little more accurate picture of how much difference there is between a 7' table and say the 8' table....again, based on potential room to maneuver a cue ball around those other 15 balls you have to play around in that 8 ball league match.
You can see that when compared this way, an 8' table allows 33% MORE ROOM to maneuver your cue ball around when compared to the 7' bar box.
The point of all this (no, I didn't create these charts for this post - I had those printed up a long time ago out of curiosity when a discussion of table sizes came up and the range of guesses was 1000 apart) isn't to argue one size over the other. Each table size does have its merits and challenges.
Perhaps - just perhaps - IF the 7' bar box is where we are headed in this United States of America, should we consider the 2" balls on these 7' tables to make the table sizes comparable? And thus the game challenges comparable.
Or bring back the 8' table that Willie and Joe and Luther played so beautifully on?
2" balls on the 7 footers?
2 1/8" balls on the 8 footers?
2 1/4" balls on the 9 footers?
Just an idea.
I'll have to get to work on that chart now I suppose.
Anyone can spin the arguments both for or against the 7' table in either direction depending on how they feel at the time, but I'd like to present a way for everyone to see just how the 7' tables COMPARE to the 8', 8' PRO and the beloved 9'ers - in a way that we as players actually and truly "should" compare them....(my opinion only of course).....by how much room we have to maneuver the cue ball around a given table with other balls still present upon it.
One of the typical arguments I hear (again, from a player's "playing" perspective and not a club owner and their revenue perspective) is on tables size or area vs another.
So, just for fun.....here is that chart.
SORRY - the chart is below
Looking at the chart (below that compares SIZES), one can surmise that an 8' table is 27% larger than a 7' table and similarly, a 9' table is a whopping 67% larger than a 7' table - based on surface area only of each table. Other comparisons from one table to another can be garnered from the chart in a similar fashion - just numbers of course.
I think one of the most realistic comparison criteria when discussing table size comparisons isn't so much the total area available like the chart above shows, but one that tells us how much ROOM we have to move the cue ball around on the table amongst the balls still setting on the play field. That's coming up...
What DOES NOT CHANGE is the fact we use 2.25" balls on each of the table sizes listed above, and when a table is crowded - caused by either a large number of total balls on a given table or a smaller space - it makes the game more challenging to master the 2nd most important physical skill in pocket billiard games: maneuving the cue ball where you want it for the next shot. After all, anyone can "pocket a ball" - but a good player can pocket a ball AND position the cue ball for their intended next shot - and it's much harder on a crowded, smaller table. Most will agree with that I'll assume.
But how much different are they really - other than size - and square inches?
The interesting chart below tells how many 2.25" balls can fit at any one time on a given playing surface, based on the general size. For example, 644 balls will fit on a 7' table if they are placed as if racked - called hexagonally - with no spaces between them. Tightly packed. Square spacing is how they would have to be placed as they come in a box of balls - side by side - with a lot of space around them. At the very least, it's eye opening. Somewhat surprising even to those that have not entertained the idea or question before. Like guessing how many jelly beans are in that jar over in the kitchen. A small wager to be won perhaps.
This last chart below shows how much larger one table is compared to another based on how many balls will fit upon the playing surface at any time with minimal distance between them - again, hexagonally - giving (I believe) a little more accurate picture of how much difference there is between a 7' table and say the 8' table....again, based on potential room to maneuver a cue ball around those other 15 balls you have to play around in that 8 ball league match.
You can see that when compared this way, an 8' table allows 33% MORE ROOM to maneuver your cue ball around when compared to the 7' bar box.
The point of all this (no, I didn't create these charts for this post - I had those printed up a long time ago out of curiosity when a discussion of table sizes came up and the range of guesses was 1000 apart) isn't to argue one size over the other. Each table size does have its merits and challenges.
Perhaps - just perhaps - IF the 7' bar box is where we are headed in this United States of America, should we consider the 2" balls on these 7' tables to make the table sizes comparable? And thus the game challenges comparable.
Or bring back the 8' table that Willie and Joe and Luther played so beautifully on?
2" balls on the 7 footers?
2 1/8" balls on the 8 footers?
2 1/4" balls on the 9 footers?
Just an idea.
I'll have to get to work on that chart now I suppose.
Attachments
Last edited:
