Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > 14.1 Pool
Reload this Page High Run Equivalency between a 9' and 10' table?
Reply
Page 4 of 5 « First 234 5
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old
  (#46)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
iTrader: 76 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
05-19-2018, 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobu5678 View Post
... Also Irving Crane, another great player ran 300 on a 5x10 table in the late 30's.
Crane's exhibition record run of 309 on a 10-footer in 1939 was tied by Mosconi in 1945.
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#47)
ChrisinNC
AzB Silver Member
ChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boone, NC
   
05-19-2018, 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobu5678 View Post
When I was in college I had seen Cranfield run out against a challenger. This is what I remember his style was: He would slam very hard into the rack, if any balls wound up way at the top of the table, he would use a shot to a side pocket, for position uptable, and he would also make sure to have a shot at another side pocket, after he cleaned the top of the table. He did this exhibition for Brunswick in the 70's, 74 to be exact.

If you're playing on 5x10 tables, you can develop strategies so that way you limit your long shots. But !!! you need to practice on the big tables.

After Cranfield ran his 495, Mosconi, since he was Brunswick's "exhibition pro" at the time, needed to defend his status, hence the 4x8 526 run. I am more impressed by Cranfield run than Mosconi, but both were great players.

Also Irving Crane, another great player ran 300 on a 5x10 table in the late 30's.
Was Cranfield's 495 on a 9-footer? I wasn't aware the second highest record 14.1 run was that high. Was that in a witnessed exhibition or just a witnessed practice session?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#48)
ChrisinNC
AzB Silver Member
ChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boone, NC
   
05-19-2018, 06:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobu5678 View Post
When I was in college I had seen Cranfield run out against a challenger. This is what I remember his style was: He would slam very hard into the rack, if any balls wound up way at the top of the table, he would use a shot to a side pocket, for position uptable, and he would also make sure to have a shot at another side pocket, after he cleaned the top of the table. He did this exhibition for Brunswick in the 70's, 74 to be exact.

If you're playing on 5x10 tables, you can develop strategies so that way you limit your long shots. But !!! you need to practice on the big tables.

After Cranfield ran his 495, Mosconi, since he was Brunswick's "exhibition pro" at the time, needed to defend his status, hence the 4x8 526 run. I am more impressed by Cranfield run than Mosconi, but both were great players.

Also Irving Crane, another great player ran 300 on a 5x10 table in the late 30's.
According to Bob, I believe Cranfield ran 30 consecutive racks (420) on a 5x10 table, but I don't think it occurred in an exhibition. That blows away Mosconi's 526 on an oversized 8-footer, in my opinion, but it doesn't count since it wasn't an exhibition.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#49)
bobu5678
AzB Bronze Member
bobu5678 is on a distinguished road
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 21
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Oct 2016
   
05-20-2018, 06:20 AM

Cranfield's 495 run was a exhibition in front of a crowd. That's my understanding. He said the crowd was responding to his exhibition, so he just kept on going. I believe it was on a 4 1/2 X 9 Table.
  
Reply With Quote
online audience
Old
  (#50)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
online audience - 05-21-2018, 06:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemosconi View Post
High Run in 14.1 is 147. Fully respect your thoughts and opinions, BUT-- YES I do think that ANY record breaking or significant sports achievement performed in front of a live audience of some significant size is much more prestigious than a sports accomplishment completed during a practice session; for my previously stated reasons.
Someone is willing to pay out a large sum to break 526 WITHOUT having a strong number of sworn witnesses? - they are willing to pay out on a self recorded camera??
Uh so again mikemosconi, you never answered if a live audience of viewers (online) would be the same as in a room full of people? Also Crane's exhibition was it during practice or did he have an opponent? Maybe you have no answer.
  
Reply With Quote
online audience
Old
  (#51)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
online audience - 05-21-2018, 06:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemosconi View Post
High Run in 14.1 is 147. Fully respect your thoughts and opinions, BUT-- YES I do think that ANY record breaking or significant sports achievement performed in front of a live audience of some significant size is much more prestigious than a sports accomplishment completed during a practice session; for my previously stated reasons.
Someone is willing to pay out a large sum to break 526 WITHOUT having a strong number of sworn witnesses? - they are willing to pay out on a self recorded camera??
Uh so again mikemosconi, you never answered if a live audience of viewers (online) would be the same as in a room full of people? Maybe you have no answer.
  
Reply With Quote
oh ok
Old
  (#52)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
oh ok - 05-24-2018, 01:54 PM

Ok mikemosconi, if u have no answer then I guess I don't respect yer viewpoint as much as i thought. Maybe u see the truth and got distracted or afraid to change yer mind. Adios - see ya in the funny papers.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#53)
mikemosconi
AzB Silver Member
mikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond reputemikemosconi has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 238
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Naples, FL.
   
05-27-2018, 04:20 PM

I just saw your comments, here is my final say on this- i believe that ANY sports accomplishment in front of a sizable ( for that type of sports venue) audience is more prestigious than something done for a camera audience- why? Several reasons, not the least of which is that for a live audience performance, you are performing at an appointed time and place NOT to your own personal scheduling, and NOT in a timeframe that you already know is MOST comfortable for your performance- Mosconi, Crane, etc. had to SHOW UP somewhere in a not too overly familiar place to set the records that they set in front of multiple distractions. who knows how far they traveled, how much sleep they got prior, etc. You want to compare THAT do setting your own schedule to be in front of a camera at YOUR own appointed time when You feel ready and relaxed? I don't think so, and that is just ONE factor- how about table familiarity, how about the air conditioning or heat or lack thereof where those guys competed OVER 60 + years ago- Come on- you were kidding on your comments right? How about if someone hits a simulated baseball 600 feet on a computerized screen measurement? You want to count that as the furthest baseball ever hit- more than Mantle's 565footer at Cleveland Stadium 60 years ago? How far do you want to take it- next we'll have lasers guiding the balls in the pockets and people will say that is OK too! You claim to be a purest, great, show up at an unfamiliar billiard room on an evening and time arranged FOR you, not by YOU, in front of 200 people you do not know, on a table you NEVER played on before, with 1940s/50s lighting and air conditioning, use an old Rambow cue, and try to break some records- GOOD LUCK!

Last edited by mikemosconi; 05-27-2018 at 04:56 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
u drew 1st blood
Old
  (#54)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
u drew 1st blood - 05-29-2018, 01:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemosconi View Post
I just saw your comments, here is my final say on this- i believe that ANY sports accomplishment in front of a sizable ( for that type of sports venue) audience is more prestigious than something done for a camera audience- why? Several reasons, not the least of which is that for a live audience performance, you are performing at an appointed time and place NOT to your own personal scheduling, and NOT in a timeframe that you already know is MOST comfortable for your performance- Mosconi, Crane, etc. had to SHOW UP somewhere in a not too overly familiar place to set the records that they set in front of multiple distractions. who knows how far they traveled, how much sleep they got prior, etc. You want to compare THAT do setting your own schedule to be in front of a camera at YOUR own appointed time when You feel ready and relaxed? I don't think so, and that is just ONE factor- how about table familiarity, how about the air conditioning or heat or lack thereof where those guys competed OVER 60 + years ago- Come on- you were kidding on your comments right? How about if someone hits a simulated baseball 600 feet on a computerized screen measurement? You want to count that as the furthest baseball ever hit- more than Mantle's 565footer at Cleveland Stadium 60 years ago? How far do you want to take it- next we'll have lasers guiding the balls in the pockets and people will say that is OK too! You claim to be a purest, great, show up at an unfamiliar billiard room on an evening and time arranged FOR you, not by YOU, in front of 200 people you do not know, on a table you NEVER played on before, with 1940s/50s lighting and air conditioning, use an old Rambow cue, and try to break some records- GOOD LUCK!
Your baseball analogy with a computer screen is weak, of course I would not compare a computer screen hit to an actual hit. I see it is the combat that YOU enjoy and not so much the Art of a GREAT performance. I get it that you do not trust technology - with this I too agree. I have done all that in strange rooms and actually lived out on the road, I hope your not giving Rambow cues a bad rep. In some strange way are you trying to say the cues of today are better than a Rambow? I know your old story bout it's not like it used to be in all dat nonsense. I would venture to guess mikemosconi that if a player officially completed 50 racks of 14.1 and it was on camera - you would not want to view the run. You may never understand this Mike but it's not a sin for a player to want to be comfortable and well prepared - the better the player the more this is deserved (ref's like in snooker). People who would rather see the player squirm and or uncomfortable in an uncontrolled environment with fans heckling them - are there for the drama and not the Art. When a player records the run - they are still hitting an actual pool ball unlike your silly computer screen analogy where a player is swinging at into the air - that premise is rests on a platform of sand and nothing else. I am a purist and I do wish there was a better venue for the young aspiring 14.1 player here in good old usa, I don't let the lack of leadership effect my ability to keep learning 14.1, if they want 9 bal to be the celebrated game and keep it in the bars then I will continue to watch the collapse. A for myself I will continue to practice Straight POOL, and compete - as you said on my own schedule - in front of the camera, then I can go back over my errors and correct them. Adios Ol Mosconimike, take care.

Last edited by Danny Harriman; 05-29-2018 at 01:27 PM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#55)
ChrisinNC
AzB Silver Member
ChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boone, NC
   
05-29-2018, 01:40 PM

To Danny Harriman and Mike Mosconi - why don't you guys try to settle your differences either privately or under the title of another thread either of you can start. Please do not continue to post on the thread that I started - "High Run Equivalency Between 9' and 10' Table", unless it's a post that has something related to my thread - thanks
  
Reply With Quote
Mike has been blocked
Old
  (#56)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
Mike has been blocked - 05-30-2018, 01:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisinNC View Post
To Danny Harriman and Mike Mosconi - why don't you guys try to settle your differences either privately or under the title of another thread either of you can start. Please do not continue to post on the thread that I started - "High Run Equivalency Between 9' and 10' Table", unless it's a post that has something related to my thread - thanks
I was referring to a ten ft table set up in a location that was not conducive to having a quite mind, and he started his thread by semi attacking me - people who start there threads with "I can't help but notice - you can bet the rest that follows will be negative. My post was related to your thread and I only mentioned that when the table is moved to a location free from distractions I will start recording some more runs. He then attacked me claiming I could not deal with distractions, I have blocked him - people like him are a waste of time. So again I will be posting some more ACTUAL footage as soon as the table is in a better location. PERIOD.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#57)
ChrisinNC
AzB Silver Member
ChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boone, NC
   
05-31-2018, 12:09 PM

That's fine - it just seemed like it was getting a little off topic between you two. My original thread was comparing the difficulty of high runs on a 9-foot and 10-foot table. I still strongly believe a high run on a 10-foot table is much tougher, as proven by the one year Derby City used a 10-foot table for their high run challenge - only one player ran 100 balls and won with a run of 117, whereas every other year on 9-foot tables with the same sized Diamond tour cut pockets the winning high run has been in excess of 200 balls.
  
Reply With Quote
not to split hairs
Old
  (#58)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
not to split hairs - 06-04-2018, 09:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisinNC View Post
That's fine - it just seemed like it was getting a little off topic between you two. My original thread was comparing the difficulty of high runs on a 9-foot and 10-foot table. I still strongly believe a high run on a 10-foot table is much tougher, as proven by the one year Derby City used a 10-foot table for their high run challenge - only one player ran 100 balls and won with a run of 117, whereas every other year on 9-foot tables with the same sized Diamond tour cut pockets the winning high run has been in excess of 200 balls.
It was actually he that stepped off topic asking me why I wanted to record my runs in an atmosphere free of distractions - our discussion pertained to table size and not distractions - he chose to sway off topic. It is not wrong to want peace and quite while trying to record a run and accomplish a goal? Or listen to your choice of music (headphones). His comment bout distractions had and has nothing to do with table size - he was just a bitter soul fishin' for an argument in my opinion. I'm learning to not respond to those types and or block em'. Not trying to split hairs with you hear Chris but your story bout the DCC is not accurate, I myself won the DCC Straight pool challenge 1 year with a 127 (9' table). I'm not at all convinced that the 9' Diamond table (pro spec pockets) would be any less difficult than the ten' tables of yesterday 4 3/4 - 5" pockets that had a more shallow shelf in the pocket. I would agree that a Diamond ten footer with pro spec pockets is always going to be tougher than a Diamond nine foot with pro specs. The Brunswick that is fixin' to be moved to a controlled environment has standard pockets that are indicative to the tables of Crane and Mosconi's era. Again as I stated before pocket size is more of a factor than table size. The 153 I ran on this early 1900's Balke Collender was quicker than any I had ever run on any nine footer - so the extry' space could be a positive rather than a negative.

Last edited by Danny Harriman; 06-04-2018 at 10:08 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#59)
ChrisinNC
AzB Silver Member
ChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond reputeChrisinNC has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Boone, NC
   
06-04-2018, 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Harriman View Post
It was actually he that stepped off topic asking me why I wanted to record my runs in an atmosphere free of distractions - our discussion pertained to table size and not distractions - he chose to sway off topic. It is not wrong to want peace and quite while trying to record a run and accomplish a goal? Or listen to your choice of music (headphones). His comment bout distractions had and has nothing to do with table size - he was just a bitter soul fishin' for an argument in my opinion. I'm learning to not respond to those types and or block em'. Not trying to split hairs with you hear Chris but your story bout the DCC is not accurate, I myself won the DCC Straight pool challenge 1 year with a 127 (9' table). I'm not at all convinced that the 9' Diamond table (pro spec pockets) would be any less difficult than the ten' tables of yesterday 4 3/4 - 5" pockets that had a more shallow shelf in the pocket. I would agree that a Diamond ten footer with pro spec pockets is always going to be tougher than a Diamond nine foot with pro specs. The Brunswick that is fixin' to be moved to a controlled environment has standard pockets that are indicative to the tables of Crane and Mosconi's era. Again as I stated before pocket size is more of a factor than table size. The 153 I ran on this early 1900's Balke Collender was quicker than any I had ever run on any nine footer - so the extry' space could be a positive rather than a negative.
I'm guessing maybe the extra space may be considered an advantage for a pro level player like yourself, but not so for anyone less than pro level. Bottom line - a 10-foot table as compared to a 9-foot table means every shot you face is 11% longer between the cue ball and the object ball, and the same 11% longer between the object ball and the pocket. That basically means even if the pocket specs on both are the same, the pockets on the 10-footer are playing 11% tighter comparatively, since your shots are taken from a 11% farther distance away from the pocket. That's just common sense - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
  
Reply With Quote
a well centered spin on table variables
Old
  (#60)
Danny Harriman
AzB Silver Member
Danny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond reputeDanny Harriman has a reputation beyond repute
 
Danny Harriman's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 775
vCash: 500
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Join Date: May 2008
   
a well centered spin on table variables - 06-04-2018, 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisinNC View Post
I'm guessing maybe the extra space may be considered an advantage for a pro level player like yourself, but not so for anyone less than pro level. Bottom line - a 10-foot table as compared to a 9-foot table means every shot you face is 11% longer between the cue ball and the object ball, and the same 11% longer between the object ball and the pocket. That basically means even if the pocket specs on both are the same, the pockets on the 10-footer are playing 11% tighter comparatively, since your shots are taken from a 11% farther distance away from the pocket. That's just common sense - it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
I agree with your 11% but that does not include the fact that there will be much less traffic on the ten ft, also easier to figure on break shot and or key ball much faster. Having less traffic will make any shot less complicated. Less traffic = "more" center ball - "" traffic = "" spin. It's a safe bet in my view that that there would be less high runs on a 9 ft Diamond table (worn cloth pro spec pockets) compared to a Brunswick ten footer with new cloth and standard pockets of the era (4 3/4 sized pockets) I can only speak for myself. I guess like hitting the ball in the center. Pro spec pockets they used on the ten footers that year at the DCC were more designed for games like one pocket - not Straight Pool. I believe it was Stuart Pettman that ran the 117 on the ten footer, I was there struggling with the extra distance and tight pockets. So again the ten' table I have access to does not have the deep shelf pockets - they are standard 4 3/4 and this does make a huge difference. Do to the bar leagues USA is raising a Nation of small table players who are forced to spin the cue ball often due the cramped space and heavy traffic, this will not help them at all with learning to make the long ball. No need to be afraid of distance - long distance information - give me straight stroke on the line.

Last edited by Danny Harriman; 06-07-2018 at 11:18 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 4 of 5 « First 234 5

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.