Harder 8' or 9' for 14.1 Straight Pool?

8” is harder. Most of the time you are shooting one half of the table, so shooting down table for longer shots is not an issue to me. Ultimately it’s the number of breakouts, combinations, and pin point shape required on the smaller tables that will do you in on a smaller table.

Posted on AzB by John Schmidt in 2009:

• "for the record i think 14.1 on the bartable is easier than 9ft.
  
  you can reach allbreakballs,combos and shots are a joke etc.
  
  yes its more confined space but with the cueball control ive learned from 14.1 thats the last thing im worried about.
  
  for the record the easiest table to play 14.1 is a 4x8 .ive played on them all and its the easiest no doubt. enough room to play but still easier on shotmaking,reaching,combos than 9ft."

Posted by Bobby Chamberlain (a highly skilled 14.1 player) recently: "I feel the 8ft table is much harder" (than a 9-footer)

Danny Harriman said:

... Now I know for sure that the 10' table is more difficult than the 9' - due to the 'long ball' hit. Just as the heavy congestion the 8' presents more complications. The 9' table being the happy medium or easiest of the three for 14.1 - without a doubt. ...

Click to expand...

Bob Jewett said:

This question has already been extensively answered in the threads about John Schmidt's run. You might look in those.

8-foot is much easier.

Click to expand...

I made run of 97 on 8-footer before I really could even play. I needed more than 10 years to break that on 9-footer..
I don't really play y 14.1 too often because lack of opponents..

Poolmanis said:

I don't really play y 14.1 too often because lack of opponents..

Click to expand...

Make them play. I'm a straight pool missionary. Whenever anyone wants to play here I make sure at least 1 game of straight pool is part of the bargain. The more people get exposed to it, the more they want to play. I have plenty of people to play now, where when I started I was all alone.

Game changes at 10 feet

I play 14.1 exclusively on a 10-footer (no 100s yet, except for its age, a gorgeous old Kling). All of a sudden you can't reach a significant number of shots. Even some standard break shots are a difficult stretch if you are standing behind the head rail and the cue ball is past center table. And on up table shots the head corners seem mighty far away. You wind up playing with a somewhat different position strategy that adds a new constraint on the game. All of which suggests that there is an ideal "easiest" table size for the individual player depending on a set of factors that includes, inter alia, that persons's height and shooting style/strengths.

In a PoolPodCast March 17 2019 interview with John Schmidt, John said any one that can run a 100 balls is a “Grand Master”, and at least a “weak pro caliber player “.

I’m not there, ...........yet

The bigger the table gets, the tighter the pockets get, relatively speaking, considering the average length shots get longer and longer. In the example of Diamond tables, an 8-footer is 90”x 45” whereas the nine footer is 100”x 50”. That’s a nearly 25% increase in the square inch area size of the table, which means average shots will be 25% longer, which means the pockets will play 25% tighter. In my experience, most of my 14.1 runs end because of missed shots more often than missed positioning. So to me it’s fairly simple that the larger the table gets, the harder it gets to execute long runs.

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I have done the head to head comparisons, and I'm as mortal as one gets. Maybe I'm the weakest player in this thread.

I played 69 innings on a 9' GC4 with 5" pockets.
Then I played 69 innings on a Diamond 7' with league cut pockets (5").

I don't like Diamonds, play on them once a year if that, and think their rails should only be on a carom table. I've played on GC nearly every day of my life for years of stretches at time. So that takes the familiarity argument out of it (since I'm way more familiar with a 9' GC).

Total balls pocketed in 69 innings on each table:
442 on GC 9'
680 on Diamond 7'

That is a 54% increase in balls pocketed!!! 54%! That is no joke. If you made 54% more balls, you'd be a believer also.

There is NO congestion. This is a myth. Try it yourself. I played on an even smaller table than the 8' that is thrown around in this thread. Maybe the congestion would be a factor in one of those fisher price kid's tables, IDK. But it is 100000% not a factor on a 7' Diamond.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts nearly every player on this thread if they played a week straight on a 7' diamond with league cut pockets, they'd probably best their lifetime high run on a factory pocket 9' GC.

Go set up 50 innings on a 7' diamond. Then come back and share your results.

I think a 7 foot is the easiest, followed by an 8-foot, 9-foot and 10-foot.

The 8-foot definitely easier than a 9-foot

In my opinion the more clusters there will be on an 8-foot are not that big a handicap cuz the easier pocketing will allow to break up and bump into balls much easier than on a 9-foot table
In a 9-foot table your focus needs to be more on making the ball

Of course in the famous ran by Mosconi, putting into consideration that the 8-foot table he played had slow cloth, I feel it is a great feat, not just for the amount of balls, but because the clusters in slow cloth will definitely make go rack after rack tougher

But I still think Thomas Engert's official 491 on a 9-foot table in the 90's was a bigger accomplishment than Mosconi's on an 8-foot table, though Engert's never seem to have gotten near the popularity that Mosconi's got.

Now Schmidt owns the 1st official highest run, and even though it's hard to tell wich of the 2 official runs is the most meritorious in terms of equipment difficulty/conditions, the longest/highest run by Schmidt possibly a big argument of the best of them all the official runs.

However, it seems to be very likely that when it comes to non-official runs, neither Schmidt not Mosconi are the guys who have run the most balls

Word out is that Cranfield, one other I forgot who and Engert's practice runs have exceeded JS and Mosconi's practice runs

I'm not sold on any of the very few 700+ runs, but I think out of the 2,3 rumored one of them probably took place

Back to context, numbers/statistics like other posts say, can definitely prove that an 8-foot table allows for bigger runs than a 9-foot table



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iusedtoberich said:

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but I have done the head to head comparisons, and I'm as mortal as one gets. Maybe I'm the weakest player in this thread.

I played 69 innings on a 9' GC4 with 5" pockets.
Then I played 69 innings on a Diamond 7' with league cut pockets (5").

I don't like Diamonds, play on them once a year if that, and think their rails should only be on a carom table. I've played on GC nearly every day of my life for years of stretches at time. So that takes the familiarity argument out of it (since I'm way more familiar with a 9' GC).

Total balls pocketed in 69 innings on each table:
442 on GC 9'
680 on Diamond 7'

That is a 54% increase in balls pocketed!!! 54%! That is no joke. If you made 54% more balls, you'd be a believer also.

There is NO congestion. This is a myth. Try it yourself. I played on an even smaller table than the 8' that is thrown around in this thread. Maybe the congestion would be a factor in one of those fisher price kid's tables, IDK. But it is 100000% not a factor on a 7' Diamond.

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts nearly every player on this thread if they played a week straight on a 7' diamond with league cut pockets, they'd probably best their lifetime high run on a factory pocket 9' GC.

Go set up 50 innings on a 7' diamond. Then come back and share your results.

Click to expand...

No disrespect, but you’re still only averaging 10 balls per inning on the 7-footer, which means you’re failing to get through a full 14 ball rack on close to half of your 69 innings. So what is causing your innings to end? Poor positioning leaving to tough shots which you miss, or careless misses on shots you shouldn’t be missing? I’d be curious what your top 5 runs on each table were?

Yes, it is significant that your average run on the 9-footer by comparison is 6-1/2 balls per inning, but your stats would be more meaningful with at least 200 innings on both tables.

ChrisinNC said:

No disrespect, but you’re still only averaging 10 balls per inning on the 7-footer, which means you’re failing to get through a full 14 ball rack on close to half of your 69 innings. So what is causing your innings to end? Poor positioning leaving to tough shots which you miss, or careless misses on shots you shouldn’t be missing? I’d be curious what your top 5 runs on each table were?

Yes, it is significant that your average run on the 9-footer by comparison is 6-1/2 balls per inning, but your stats would be more meaningful with at least 200 innings on both tables.

Click to expand...

None taken. I actually had over 300 innings recorded on the 9' table, just as a matter of course. I was trying to run 50 balls for the first time, and was playing 14.1 every day for the whole summer on my home table and keeping stats.

Then, I went to my hometown for Thanksgiving holiday, and had access to a Diamond in my old hometown room. I played as long as I could on it, and got to 69 innings total. So, to make the comparison as fair a I could figure out how to, I only counted the last 69 innings of my my GC run. That said, my statistics from the 300 plus innings closely matched the last 69 innings. Below is the thread from when I did that comparison a few years back if you are interested in further details.

One thing of note, in that one week on the 7' Diamond, I set a new lifetime high for me of 44 balls. It was at that time 27 on a GC. In the 7 years since I made that run, I never played on the 7' again. I have improved my 9' GC run (its my home table) to 37 in 2017. So one week on a 7' table that I can't stand the cushions yielded not only a much higher per inning average, but also a much higher high run than 7 years of fiddling around on a 9' table.

Original thread showing all my data from 7 years ago:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=344551

iusedtoberich said:

None taken. I actually had over 300 innings recorded on the 9' table, just as a matter of course. I was trying to run 50 balls for the first time, and was playing 14.1 every day for the whole summer on my home table and keeping stats.

Then, I went to my hometown for Thanksgiving holiday, and had access to a Diamond in my old hometown room. I played as long as I could on it, and got to 69 innings total. So, to make the comparison as fair a I could figure out how to, I only counted the last 69 innings of my my GC run. That said, my statistics from the 300 plus innings closely matched the last 69 innings. Below is the thread from when I did that comparison a few years back if you are interested in further details.

One thing of note, in that one week on the 7' Diamond, I set a new lifetime high for me of 44 balls. It was at that time 27 on a GC. In the 7 years since I made that run, I never played on the 7' again. I have improved my 9' GC run (its my home table) to 37 in 2017. So one week on a 7' table that I can't stand the cushions yielded not only a much higher per inning average, but also a much higher high run than 7 years of fiddling around on a 9' table.

Original thread showing all my data from 7 years ago:
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=344551

Click to expand...

Maybe I need to switch and start practicing my 14.1 on our 7 foot Diamond as opposed to our 9 or 10 foot table with tight pockets. When I kept stats on my runs not long ago, I sadly realized that most of my runs these days seem to end on my missing a very makeable shot, sometimes even a ridiculously easy shot that I never would have figured possible to miss in years past. It’s kind of difficult to figure out how to snap out of that.

9' is harder.

Rotation games are always the most difficult because there is only one good hit. That is also why victory in rotation games between two pros is almost always kicks and safes.

potter vs cue ball mechanic

best way to answer that question is to compare the 10' to 7' table. I would much rather play on the ten ft and deal with the long ball hits than all the congestion a bar box would present - that would me brutal. Games like 9 ball won't matter much - but with 14.1 the ten footer would be easier and more fun than it would to deal with 14 balls re clustering often. Therefore I think the 9' would be less of a challenge than the 8' table. I am 100 + ball runner, used to run a hundred for breakfast - now it's all ten ft tables for me (billiards).

Danny Harriman said:

best way to answer that question is to compare the 10' to 7' table. I would much rather play on the ten ft and deal with the long ball hits than all the congestion a bar box would present - that would me brutal. Games like 9 ball won't matter much - but with 14.1 the ten footer would be easier and more fun than it would to deal with 14 balls re clustering often. Therefore I think the 9' would be less of a challenge than the 8' table. I am 100 + ball runner, used to run a hundred for breakfast - now it's all ten ft tables for me (billiards).

Click to expand...

Do your numbers jive with this statement? I believe you have posted before your high run on a 9' table is in the mid 300's, while your 10' high run is in the low 100's. Is that correct? What about instead of high runs, comparing your average of x amount of innings on both table sizes. Have you ever kept stats like that? Thanks for your professional insight.

Sure

iusedtoberich said:

Do your numbers jive with this statement? I believe you have posted before your high run on a 9' table is in the mid 300's, while your 10' high run is in the low 100's. Is that correct? What about instead of high runs, comparing your average of x amount of innings on both table sizes. Have you ever kept stats like that? Thanks for your professional insight.

Click to expand...

The 9' Goldcrown table I ran the 351 on had 4 3/4 pockets and kinda soft rails compared to today's cushions, the ten ft. Big birtha is my favorite table I have ever practiced on. However Birtha has 4 1/2 pockets fast cushions and it's in a basement environment i.o. humid conditions + the sides play much more difficult from a sharp angle - so hard to make that comparison. The other ten ft table I have access to (will be practicing on it today) is not in the best place for no distractions - to say the least. There are many different variables to consider - longer the table the more true it needs to roll :-0 etc. I did TRY to practice 14.1 on a 7' a handful of times - never again, I did not enjoy weaving through all the traffic i.e. street theater stuff - high run was in the mid 70's. I have run 172 on a ten' with similar sized pockets - so I am certain the 7' was more difficult. The best table in the Country ( and a challenge) for 14.1 is Big Bertha in K.C, MO (Raytown rec Billiard room). I have played all over the World and it is hands down my favorite for 14.1 discipline of Pocket Billiards.

Sure

iusedtoberich said:

Do your numbers jive with this statement? I believe you have posted before your high run on a 9' table is in the mid 300's, while your 10' high run is in the low 100's. Is that correct? What about instead of high runs, comparing your average of x amount of innings on both table sizes. Have you ever kept stats like that? Thanks for your professional insight.

Click to expand...

The 9' Goldcrown table I ran the 351 on had 4 3/4 pockets and kinda soft rails compares to todays cushions, the ten ft. There are many different variables to consider - longer the table the more true it needs to roll :-0 etc. I did TRY to practice 14.1 on a 7' a handful of times - never again, I did not enjoy weaving through all the traffic i.e. street theater stuff - high run was in the mid 70's. I have run 172 on a ten' with similar sized pockets to - so I am certain the 7' was more difficult than the 10'. The best table in the Country ( and a challenge) for 14.1 is Big Bertha in K.C, MO (Raytowne rec Billiard room). I have played all over the World and it is hands down my favorite for 14.1 discipline of Pocket Billiards. So no matter if yer strong suit is cue ball position - the bar box is truly a nightmare to navigate the tight quarters - just not enough space to breath - for 14.1 even without a Guiness in yer hand. I will probly never play serious pool on a bar box again - if I live to be 110 - just not any fun. However - no need for me to keep any averages - I am certain that while that pocketing a ball may be much easier on a 8' - the heavy traffic is a big problem. My assessment is a 8ft is more challenging than the 9 ft for straight pool.