Do you think 41/2 '' pockets play easier on Bar table or Big table?
41/2'' pockets
- Thread starter Slickstick9
- Start date
Depends on how they're set up... Pocket angles, pocket facings, shelf depth, ect.
.
I think shelf depth and clothe newness can be a factor. All things equal, I’d think bigger would be harder. To move the cueball around on the big table I can hit pocket speed as often as I can on a small table.
Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
If all things are equal on the tables (cloth, cut of pockets, shelves, rails, slate, etc.) then the only difference would be the bigger tables may force you to shoot a shot that is maybe a foot or two longer.
I have never had a problem going from one size table to another. That said, I am only referring to the shot-making part of the game, not position play and dealing with clusters. I just focus on the shot at hand and fire away.
Any two tables can be set up as differently as night and day though...absolutely.
Maniac
I have never had a problem going from one size table to another. That said, I am only referring to the shot-making part of the game, not position play and dealing with clusters. I just focus on the shot at hand and fire away.
Any two tables can be set up as differently as night and day though...absolutely.
Maniac
Last edited:
Pretty open question... Are you comparing apples to apples?
A 4.5 inch pocket is obviously 2' closer on a 7' table vs a 9' table.
Assuming the tables are the same design (pocket angles, shelf depth), its obviously easier on a 7'.
If the 7' is a Diamond with a deep shelf and a pro-cut at 4.5; a 9' Brunswick could actually appear to play easier...as in more forgiving on something less than center pocket hit.
This could be the lack of deep shelf and/or actual pocket angle. Factory Brunswick tables are typically 4.75; if the rails are extended to 4.5, one has to assume the angles were cut correctly.
However, you still deal with the extra 2', therefore, IMO the 7' is still easier (or a wash at best).
I played over 25 years nearly exclusively on 7' table (leagues) and considered myself an A player.
Switched over to 9' tables and instantly became a B player... I enjoyed the challenge even though it was frustrating at times.
After about a year on 9' tables, I did not see/experience any loss in my 7' game... At that point, I sold my 7' Diamond home table an installed a 9' Brunswick.
I am still more proficient on a 7' but the gap is continually getting smaller.
Last edited:
I wonder what the average shot distances are on the two tables -- cue ball to object ball, object ball to pocket, and the sum of those two distances.
Heck of a algorithm there...lol
My guess is that would be on average comparable based on the table size and the need to move the cue ball in space for position.
Rail angles and shelf depth are the real factors- old Diamonds play like crap because those two factors are completely screwed up so that balls hit "properly" just do not pocket- not pool in my opinion.
Kind of an obvious answer - pocket sizes being equal, the pockets will play tougher the bigger the table gets.
40"x80" vs 50"x100" - simple math means the average shot is 25% longer on the 9-foot table.
Very true.
In my opinion that is the reason most of the players in my area can't play dead on a 9' table but do ok on the 7' tables.
They are just not use to that extra 25%. It simple, as you said.
Bar table? Valley, Diamond, other?
My experience is Valley bar boxes are set up for easy quick play, shallow shelf and facings are angle more like 90 degrees to make a ball rebound more into the hole than to rattle out.
Diamonds bar tables from what I know are just miniature versions of their big brother tables. They play like a Diamond; deep shelf, and more tradition angles on on the facings.
If only we had a data dawg.
Why would identical pockets play any different on any length of table? IMO, between a 7-footer and a 9-footer, the only difference would be the length of shot.
Let me give you this example: Use the corners of each table only from the spot closest to the side pocket lengthwise to the spot at the middle of the foot or head rail. Shoot balls. Do they play any different? Well no, because basically you are playing on completely identical surfaces. Now add in the rest of the tables surface to the equation. Do the pockets play differently now? No...but some of the shots are longer. If the pockets are identical and play likewise using only a portion of the tables, then why would extra length change the way the pockets played?
That said...some shots do get harder from the added area of the table, but it has nothing to do with the pockets changing. There would be some slight variations of angle the balls could approach the pockets from on 7-foot to 9-foot tables altering the way the pocket accepts the balls, but once again this has everything to do with length/width factors and has nothing to do with the pockets themselves.
A better question would merely have been: "Do 7-foot tables play differently than 9-foot tables"?
Maniac
Last edited:
Longer shots can...
1) ...make the pocket appear tougher when it’s the player’s fault not the pocket.
Longer shots means less forgiveness on your aim (unintentional cheating the pocket). You might not notice a big difference between 7’/9’ with 4.5” pockets but you will probable notice a big difference between 7’/9’ with 4.125” pockets.
2) ...actually make the pocket play tougher.
Longer shots mean hitting some shots harder to achieve the same cueball control as you would on a short shot (action and position). Harder hit shots will be rejected by pockets more than softer hit shots.
Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)
Absolutely, I agree on everything said here. But notice that in your two examples you are placing the blame on the longer shot and not the pockets (which was my point entirely).
Respectfully,
Maniac
The middle of the pocket is the same place on both.
True, but I think we can all agree, it is further away at times.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk