10' Tables Future Of Pro Pool??

[Scott Lee]

Mr Hoppe...Why? In the decades that pool was regularly played on 5x10 tables, cues were the same length that they are today. Earl's 70" cue was an anomolie, not a necessity.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Not to mention all of the custom cue makers who would have to buy larger lathes to make longer cues...

 

[hunger strike]

10' pocket cut....

A billiard mechanic oughta chime in on this, and check the table on site while it is still there. An 82 year-old table mechanic told me that in general the pockets on an antique nine footer are supposed to be angled as follows: for the inside angle of the corner pocket, nearest the center of the short rail, you sight along the angle of the pocket and it should point to the nearest ti**y of the side pocket across the table. for the outside angle of the corner pocket, or the angled side of the pocket that meets the long rail, the angle should point to the far ti**y of the side pocket across from ya. And by ti**y, I mean titty. This is just what I was told. So, do any old timers or mechanics know if this was supposed to be the same guideline for ten footers? The commentators last night said the pocket angle was flared open. But I have played on ten footers with angles more closed and it does not seem to always help pocket balls. Mechanics? Input? There is a pool hall in rural kansas, in a town near the "world's largest barn," where all the pocket angles are more closed and all balls get kicked out. But the woman racks the balls for you and I think it is a quarter a rack. Seriously. It's a throwback for sure.

 

[asbani]

I would love the 10ft to become used in every pro tournament as the official size of pool because of two reasons, you have to play really good to win the game, and the game is not just about the break anymore, which is pure luck if you ask me, sometimes guys play perfect on 9ft but still lose because of the break, They weren't either pocketing balls on break, or they are not getting shots on the one ball.

on the 9ft its always like "Did he make a ball on break and have shot on the one?" if so, he'd be out, 90% of the times, but its different story on 10ft, even if a guy is furtune enough to be making balls on break and getting a shot, he still don't have to be a winner as you witnessed yesterday, Shane was making balls, and getting shots off the break, but he has to play good to win period, he didn't, Earl wasn't making good breaks on the final 2 days, yet he won, cause he played good.

 

[luckwouldhaveit]

Interesting idea. Somehow creating a larger skillgap will help offset random elements.

 

[jalapus logan]

I would love the 10ft to become used in every pro tournament as the official size of pool because of two reasons, you have to play really good to win the game, and the game is not just about the break anymore, which is pure luck if you ask me, sometimes guys play perfect on 9ft but still lose because of the break, They weren't either pocketing balls on break, or they are not getting shots on the one ball.

on the 9ft its always like "Did he make a ball on break and have shot on the one?" if so, he'd be out, 90% of the times, but its different story on 10ft, even if a guy is furtune enough to be making balls on break and getting a shot, he still don't have to be a winner as you witnessed yesterday, Shane was making balls, and getting shots off the break, but he has to play good to win period, he didn't, Earl wasn't making good breaks on the final 2 days, yet he won, cause he played good.

Pros do not play as well as you suggest. Observe the statistics as gathered by AZB'er AtLarge from the recent 10 ball masters:

Breaker Made at Least 1 Ball on the Break and Did Not Foul

Masters -- 155 of 254 (61%) [Info. for 2 games missing because of streaming problems.]
Pro Players Championship -- 75 of 119 (63%)
Combined -- 230 of 373 (62%)

Breaker Won the Game

Masters -- 130 of 256 (51%)
Pro Players Championship -- 64 of 119 (54%)
Combined -- 194 of 375 (52%)

Break-and-Run Games

Masters -- 49 of 256 (19%)
Pro Players Championship -- 21 of 119 (18%)
Combined -- 70 of 375 (19%)

The breaker won the game 52% of the time. That is not what I expected at all. Obviously, this demonstrates that running out on the good old 9 footer is actually tougher than many people here realize. Data does not lie.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=223839&highlight=statistics

BTW, thanks AtLarge, I wish we had more stats on pool. It would really help our sport, IMO.

 

[justmedude2001]

i totally agree....

with you. especially on runouts being special. a runout by pros of earl's and shane's caliber on a 9 footer are rarely worth cheering about but on this 10 footer i found myself feeling AMAZED and AWED by every single table run by either player. seeing earl hit 8 foot touch draw shots 45degrees into a corner pocket and getting perfect shape or paper thin cutting the one along the top rail from 7 feet away to start the match ending game was some of the best pool i have ever witnessed. i pray that this won't be the last time we see a couple of world champions play on a ridiculously tough 10 footer like this one.

On the contrary, sometimes watching the pros run rack after rack and never missing has it's boring moments, as well. What I really liked about this was that table made two of the better players ever look mortal.

A runout was special. Not taken for granted.

Will 10'ers become the standard, probably not. But I think it's a cool alternative, and hopefully we'll see challenge matches like this every now and again. Raises the bar for the best of the best.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

Mr Hoppe...Why? In the decades that pool was regularly played on 5x10 tables, cues were the same length that they are today. Earl's 70" cue was an anomolie, not a necessity.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Good point. Actually, they were shorter! 57" was the norm back then.

 

[justmedude2001]

one thing we need.....

to remember though is BOTH players played on the same table. both had to deal with the same conditions as the other had to deal with. obviously earl was able to overcome the difficulties of this particular tables conditions a little better than shane was.

Good post, and I agree. Need another table. Johnnyt

 

[Rick S.]

with you. especially on runouts being special. a runout by pros of earl's and shane's caliber on a 9 footer are rarely worth cheering about but on this 10 footer i found myself feeling AMAZED and AWED by every single table run by either player. seeing earl hit 8 foot touch draw shots 45degrees into a corner pocket and getting perfect shape or paper thin cutting the one along the top rail from 7 feet away to start the match ending game was some of the best pool i have ever witnessed. i pray that this won't be the last time we see a couple of world champions play on a ridiculously tough 10 footer like this one.

Exactly right....


Much, much more suspense in the game!!!

Just knowing that they don't have to get out, even on a wide open table.
It's pool at it's finest.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

Exactly right....
Much, much more suspense in the game!!!
Just knowing that they don't have to get out, even on a wide open table.
It's pool at it's finest.

I agree, I never thought he would run out that very last rack, and was certainly impressed when he did.

I must admit though, I would rather watch the pros trade packages on the 9 footer than seemingly hack it up on the aircraft carrier. It's just more fun to me.

 

[BasementDweller]

On the contrary, sometimes watching the pros run rack after rack and never missing has it's boring moments, as well. What I really liked about this was that table made two of the better players ever look mortal.

A runout was special. Not taken for granted.

Will 10'ers become the standard, probably not. But I think it's a cool alternative, and hopefully we'll see challenge matches like this every now and again. Raises the bar for the best of the best.

It's funny because although I wrote what I did, I still agree with you :scratchhead:

Here's my thinking on this:

You have a spectrum of difficulty on a pool table - on the one end you have playing 10-ball on a snooker table (very difficult), and on the other end you have playing 9-ball on a barbox (easy, although I know it has its challenges so don't flame me on that). So, if we were to watch pros playing 10-ball on a snooker table we would all get bored at some point because you would constantly see guys running 3 balls and then playing safe. Likewise, watching guys run out sets on the barbox without missing can get boring to some (I still enjoy watching this). So the answer is to find the right place on this spectrum. For me, I think when pros are playing nearly 200 racks of pool on a table and neither of them can run out 3 racks in a row, that's too difficult. Did either of them even run 2 racks in a row? So the table appeared to be just a bit too difficult for my taste. Maybe there are pros that could pull off a 3-pack on this table but I wouldn't bet on it.

In all human endeavors we can make things so challenging that it becomes pointless. Does anyone really want to watch sprinters run backwards? Or should we continue to make baseball fields larger until only the best players can hit home runs? At some point, it gets ridiculous.

 

[Johnnyt]

to remember though is BOTH players played on the same table. both had to deal with the same conditions as the other had to deal with. obviously earl was able to overcome the difficulties of this particular tables conditions a little better than shane was.

Yes they did both have to play on the same table. Earl played great, no question about it. But even he said he planed this table design for 4 or 5 years.
I say let them play on a regular 10' table=not gaffed and have one rule, you talk you lose. Under those conditions I'll put a $1000 on Shane in a NY Minute. Johnnyt

 

[justadub]

It's funny because although I wrote what I did, I still agree with you :scratchhead:

Here's my thinking on this:

You have a spectrum of difficulty on a pool table - on the one end you have playing 10-ball on a snooker table (very difficult), and on the other end you have playing 9-ball on a barbox (easy, although I know it has its challenges so don't flame me on that). So, if we were to watch pros playing 10-ball on a snooker table we would all get bored at some point because you would constantly see guys running 3 balls and then playing safe. Likewise, watching guys run out sets on the barbox without missing can get boring to some (I still enjoy watching this). So the answer is to find the right place on this spectrum. For me, I think when pros are playing nearly 200 racks of pool on a table and neither of them can run out 3 racks in a row, that's too difficult. Did either of them even run 2 racks in a row? So the table appeared to be just a bit too difficult for my taste. Maybe there are pros that could pull off a 3-pack on this table but I wouldn't bet on it.

In all human endeavors we can make things so challenging that it becomes pointless. Does anyone really want to watch sprinters run backwards? Or should we continue to make baseball fields larger until only the best players can hit home runs? At some point, it gets ridiculous.

And I guess that I agree with much of what you have to say, as well, in that I wouldn't want the game to be made so difficult that it wasn't enjoyable to watch. I suppose we just differ on where that line is, and I don't believe that line was exceeded last evening. I really enjoyed seeing either player making a great long shot, and appreciating them just making that particular shot, due to the challenges of the table.

As with everything, it all depends on ones perspective.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

It doesn't have to be a full fledged conversion from the get go. How many pool rooms have I seen that have at least one snooker table? Answer is alot. In my opinion, instead of the snooker table, have the five by ten. This would be THE action table. Alot of good players like to practice on the snooker table to test their long shots and because of the tighter pockets. In my opinion thats the only thing a snooker table is good for, well that and golf. Make the five by ten a main stay in any pool room, then if it hits, start phasing out the nine footers slowly.

An easier and way cheaper alternative would be simply for Aramith to come out with a pool ball set the size of snooker balls. Then just make the snooker table "the" action table. After all, once the 10 footer evolves into a run out snooze-fest isn't the 12' table going to be the likely solution anyway?

Have you ever watched Wu play buddy??

Perhaps you took my words a little too literally. Sure there are players capable of running out a set, Earl and Shane being two of them. Heck, Earl ran a 10 pack with a LOT of money at stake. But at any professional tournament it is rare, very rare. Special enough that if it was getting close to happening the entire crowd would probably move over to that table to witness it.

And when it does happen it is probably one of the most exciting things that could possibly occur.

I would love the 10ft to become used in every pro tournament as the official size of pool because of two reasons, you have to play really good to win the game, and the game is not just about the break anymore, which is pure luck if you ask me, sometimes guys play perfect on 9ft but still lose because of the break, They weren't either pocketing balls on break, or they are not getting shots on the one ball.

on the 9ft its always like "Did he make a ball on break and have shot on the one?" if so, he'd be out, 90% of the times, but its different story on 10ft, even if a guy is furtune enough to be making balls on break and getting a shot, he still don't have to be a winner as you witnessed yesterday, Shane was making balls, and getting shots off the break, but he has to play good to win period, he didn't, Earl wasn't making good breaks on the final 2 days, yet he won, cause he played good.

And this is my point. Earl played better than Shane. As you say, "you have to play good to win, period."

I personally think that with the talent of professional players today if 10' foot tables were the standard it wouldn't be long before the game would be the close to the same as it is now. After all the pros adjusted to the new standard the performance at most tournaments would look closer to what we see now on 9 footers than what we saw over the weekend at this match.

Having this match take place on a 10 footer, and the effect it had on two great players, was very interesting and I'd like to see it again. But I believe part of the reason it was interesting and had some effect on how they played was due to the unusual conditions they faced. If it was the norm it wouldn't be an unusual challenge and therefore wouldn't have that much of an effect on their performance.

 

[Nibroc]

comments

i like this thread.

i think it would be cool to see one of them brunswicks redone and setup by glen like a diamond with 4.5 pro cut pockets one piece slate. I think that could be the nicest table ive ever seen and shane would have a way better chance on a greatly set up one.

one of the comments said was that pros would get use to the tables if they were 10 ft yes i agree i think to pros could get use to it some what. i think they still couldnt be as good as they were on a 9ft because of that bigger margin for error also it would probably take longer to get use to it then it would for a 9 footer especially if your still playing on both. i think that would be something to that both 10' and 9' should both still be played on because then it creates even more elements to get use to and to have and switch back and forth to.

anyway i like the 10 footers so bring em on.

have fun and have a great year yall

 

[watchez]

The answer is NO. Earl/SVB was entertaining - that is why people are thinking this. Pool rooms will not be putting in 10 foot tables taking up more space and making less money.

 

[Cameron Smith]

An easier and way cheaper alternative would be simply for Aramith to come out with a pool ball set the size of snooker balls. Then just make the snooker table "the" action table. After all, once the 10 footer evolves into a run out snooze-fest isn't the 12' table going to be the likely solution anyway?



Perhaps you took my words a little too literally. Sure there are players capable of running out a set, Earl and Shane being two of them. Heck, Earl ran a 10 pack with a LOT of money at stake. But at any professional tournament it is rare, very rare. Special enough that if it was getting close to happening the entire crowd would probably move over to that table to witness it.

And when it does happen it is probably one of the most exciting things that could possibly occur.



And this is my point. Earl played better than Shane. As you say, "you have to play good to win, period."

I personally think that with the talent of professional players today if 10' foot tables were the standard it wouldn't be long before the game would be the close to the same as it is now. After all the pros adjusted to the new standard the performance at most tournaments would look closer to what we see now on 9 footers than what we saw over the weekend at this match.

Having this match take place on a 10 footer, and the effect it had on two great players, was very interesting and I'd like to see it again. But I believe part of the reason it was interesting and had some effect on how they played was due to the unusual conditions they faced. If it was the norm it wouldn't be an unusual challenge and therefore wouldn't have that much of an effect on their performance.

Actually you can get snooker sized pool balls for the snooker table. I think people use it for poker pool. I've also seen traditional games played with them. I hate it, pool isn't supposed to be snooker. Pocketing a ball isn't supposed to be that hard. The beauty of pool is in the positional routes and the shots that are possible. I mean, in snooker the house comes down if a player makes a long pot with the red on the long rail.

I agree with your overall assessment. Players would adapt quickly. Part of the difficult of snooker is due to the smaller balls. Larger balls on the table with pool pockets, it's not nearly as tough as people might think.

 

[hang-the-9]

I really hope they are not, for one reason. My ego won't be able to take the crap from the new 10' table players that will make fun of us for playing on the "small" tables.

"Hey buddy, the *real* players don't have the easy shots you get all the time on that tiny 9 footer".

Plus playing on them makes things look like you would if you were using an iPad as a phone, just a bit out of proportion.

 

[CreeDo]

10 footers are neat, but 9 footers are difficult enough for 99.9% of us. In fact, some are claiming the 10 footer was too tough for shane, which makes it too tough for 99.99999999% of us.

Neither casual players nor manufacturers are gonna jump all over something to make pool harder. I can't even argue it makes the game more entertaining. A two pack every three hours just doesn't excite me quite as much as what shane does on a 9 footer.

All that said, the hardcore fans can watch or enjoy the occasional special challenge on these tables between the few who need the added difficulty.

 

[Zbotiman]

Good Points All!

I would love to see the ten-foot table be the future and the shot in the arm that pool needs so badly right now. However IMO it won’t happen. There is just too much room needed for the tables (about 15’x20’) and space costs have gone up twenty times what they were when most poolrooms had one or two of them. There are very few of them left that can be bought used. I don’t see any of the major table companies gearing up to build new ones and if they do what would the cost be?

I can see a future in action matches like TAR and small tournaments with the elite players on the ten footer’s, but I don’t think anyone would want to watch a bunch of A & B players play 9 or 10-ball on them. Tournaments like the US Open would take two weeks to complete.

For the last few months I’ve heard how hard or how easy a 10-foot table will be for players like Shane and Earl. The truth is not many are old enough to have seen a lot of playing on a ten footer and if they did they know that 95% or more was playing 14.1 on them, not a power game like 10-ball. Rotation games are very much harder on a 10-footer than a 4 ½ x 9’.

I enjoyed the TAR match and hope more matches are played on a 10 footer, but a 10-footer that is set up right. The one we just saw was set up poorly or it settled big time since it was worked on. Johnnyt

.......Well, here goes, 10 footers, the future?
Let me digress; I was just at "The Masters, 10 ball" and on the last 2 days of the Tournament, an Amateur event, was scheduled to coincide with the Pro 10-ball event. With the worlds elite Ball movers in the very next room, not 40ft. away, it looked to me like, not one amateurs from the adjoining room even came over to watch the worlds absolute best, PLAY!

10 footers, really? I played on a converted 10 ft. Gold Crown snooker table growing up (much like the table used in this challenge match) and I can say from experience, "the game you play on that surface is a safety orientated, challenge, very different methods for winning, apply!
The "common man" in pool, isn't going to find these types of conditions, FUN AT ALL! And with-out some pretty adept pool knowledge, the game isn't going to be very interesting to watch, either!

After all, 10 footers didn't even make it through the 40's! I don't think you'll be seeing them in your local Billiard establishment any time SOON!:speechless: