2 table sizes 5" difference....why???

N

northshoremb

Registered
Hello i was just talking to some guys in league and we play on barbox Valley 93" tables amd there is another tourney that is the same tables but are 88". Why in the heck does valley make same tables 88 and 93"????? On their website shows both but doesnt specify difference and why the 2 types
 
Mostly to allow for smaller table for bars without the room. They measure their outside dimensions lengthwise 93 or 88. Most bar owners don't care what is between the cushions, just if it fits in available space.
 
44x88 is a standard 8 foot table and 46x92 is an oversize 8 foot table. These are standard sizes
 
northshoremb said:
Hello i was just talking to some guys in league and we play on barbox Valley 93" tables amd there is another tourney that is the same tables but are 88". Why in the heck does valley make same tables 88 and 93"????? On their website shows both but doesnt specify difference and why the 2 types
Click to expand...
Very few people understand how to properly measure a pool table. It is measured the same way a TV screen size is measured - diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate. On what is considered a 9-foot table, which is a 50"x100" playing surface or 8'4"x4'2", if you measure diagonally, you get exactly 108" - which is exactly 9'.

For an 8-foot table which is an 88"x44" playing surface (7'4"x3'8") if you measure diagonally you get exactly 96" which is exactly 8-feet.

An oversized 8' table has a 92"x46" playing surface and 100" diagonal measurement - which means proportionately it should be best described as an 8-1/3 foot pool table.

A true 7-foot table has a 78"x39" playing area and an 84" (exactly 7' diagonal measurement). However, Diamond's specs for their barbox 7-foot table is actually an 80"x40" playing area - which comes out slightly larger than the standard 7-foot table specs most pool table manufacturers have used for years.
 
Last edited:
ChrisinNC said:
Very few people don't understand how to properly measure a pool table. It is measured the same way a TV screen size is measured - diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate. On what is considered a 9-foot table, which is a 50"x100" playing surface or 8'4"x4'2", if you measure diagonally, you get exactly 108" - which is exactly 9'.

For an 8-foot table which is an 88"x44" playing surface (7'4"x3'8") if you measure diagonally you get exactly 96" which is exactly 8-feet.

An oversized 8' table has a 92"x46" playing surface and 100" diagonal measurement - which means proportionately it should be best described as an 8-1/3 foot pool table.

A true 7-foot table has a 78"x39" playing area and an 84" (exactly 7' diagonal measurement). However, Diamond's specs for their barbox 7-foot table is actually an 80"x40" playing area - which comes out slightly larger than the standard 7-foot table specs most pool table manufacturers have used for years.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting! So, I assume there's then some standard for the radius of the drop-offs, and the location of the radius center?
 
ChrisinNC said:
Very few people don't understand how to properly measure a pool table. It is measured the same way a TV screen size is measured - diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate. On what is considered a 9-foot table, which is a 50"x100" playing surface or 8'4"x4'2", if you measure diagonally, you get exactly 108" - which is exactly 9'.

For an 8-foot table which is an 88"x44" playing surface (7'4"x3'8") if you measure diagonally you get exactly 96" which is exactly 8-feet.

An oversized 8' table has a 92"x46" playing surface and 100" diagonal measurement - which means proportionately it should be best described as an 8-1/3 foot pool table.

A true 7-foot table has a 78"x39" playing area and an 84" (exactly 7' diagonal measurement). However, Diamond's specs for their barbox 7-foot table is actually an 80"x40" playing area - which comes out slightly larger than the standard 7-foot table specs most pool table manufacturers have used for years.
Click to expand...

Wow thanls for the rundown. All these years we have been calling Valley Barbox coin tables 3.5x7' tables. Never knew they were 8 footers cause man a 7 footer must be friggen tiny then. The league I play 19 years in we played 10' tables so they barbox are new to me and totally different strategy
 
ChrisinNC said:
Very few people understand how to properly measure a pool table. It is measured the same way a TV screen size is measured - diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate. ...
Click to expand...
I think that was not the way table size was originally defined and certainly not the way I learned it.

A 4.5x9 table has a true 4.5-foot dimension. That is the width of the cloth including the cushions. 4.5 feet is 54 inches. The cushions are two inches wide. That gives the 50 inch dimension for the width of the table and the length, nose-to-nose is 100 inches with diamonds that are 12.5 inches apart.

A 5x10-foot table has a true five-foot dimension for the width of the cloth. That leads to a 56-inch width nose-to-nose, a 112-inch length, and diamonds exactly 14 inches apart.

A 4x8-foot table would then have a nose-to-nose width of 44 inches, and a nose-to-nose length of 88 inches. There is also an "oversize" 8-foot table that is two inches wider.

It may be that the diagonal pocket-drop dimension is close to the nominal dimension, but I don't think that's where the dimension originated.
 
Last edited:
ChrisinNC said:
Very few people understand how to properly measure a pool table. It is measured the same way a TV screen size is measured - diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate. On what is considered a 9-foot table, which is a 50"x100" playing surface or 8'4"x4'2", if you measure diagonally, you get exactly 108" - which is exactly 9'. ...
Click to expand...

The diagonal dimension you state would vary from table to table depending on the shelf depth. On a standard Diamond 9-footer, it's about 111," not 108".

As Bob said, (50" playing surface + 4" for the cushions) x 2 = 108" = "9-footer". So 9 feet is a nominal, not an actual, table dimension.
 
AtLarge said:
Yes, but I think the OP is talking about bar boxes ("7-footers").
Click to expand...
So, we could extend the progression from the larger sizes to a bar box and get:

3.5 feet = 36+6 = 42 inches = 38 inches nose-to-nose for width
38*2 = 72 inches nose-to-nose

Note that this actually gives a length nose-to-nose that is six feet exactly.

So much for theory. How wide are real "seven" foot tables? (I am suspicious of manufacturers' descriptions unless they clearly show "nose-to-nose" numbers or give the exact spacing of the diamonds.)
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
So, we could extend the progression from the larger sizes to a bar box and get:

3.5 feet = 36+6 = 42 inches = 38 inches nose-to-nose for width
38*2 = 72 inches nose-to-nose

Note that this actually gives a length nose-to-nose that is six feet exactly.

So much for theory. How wide are real "seven" foot tables? (I am suspicious of manufacturers' descriptions unless they clearly show "nose-to-nose" numbers or give the exact spacing of the diamonds.)
Click to expand...


(38" playing surface + 4" cushions) x 2 = 84" = 7-footer

Diamond uses a larger playing surface on their "7-footer" -- 40 x 80. That one does not work out "nominally" to 7 feet.
 
After i stopped laughing, I gave you all an F- grade for your knowledge of pool table sizes. First off, a Valley 88" 93" & 101" refer to the model size of the table, those numbers refer to the outside length of the table cabinet...LOL A valley 93" minus the width of both rails which are 6 1/2" wide × 2= 93"-13=80" playing surface.

Table sizes are measured from cushion nose to cushion nose, and a true 3 1/2 x 7 has a playing surface of 38"×76". An oversize 7ft is 40"×80". An 8ft is 44"×88" and if you add the width of rails to that being 13" that's how you come up with the Valley 101" model. And yes, 50"×100" is a 9ft.

Valley has never made a 46"×92" oversized 8ft LOL

I've explained all this before on AZB. A 9ft playing surface is actually short of 4.5' x 9' because that's the playing surface only. The true measurement for cloth purposes is measured from the finish of rail to rail, which means adding 2" to the playing surface on both sides of the table to account for the rails. So, 50"+2"+2"=54" = 4 1/2 foot × 2 = 100"+2"+2"=104 But the part that confuses everyone is that 9' is 108" not 104" but now think about this for a minute...twice as wide as is it is long. That means 50"+2"+2"=54 × 2= 50"+50"+2"+2"+2"+2"=108" but when doubling the width, how many rails are you adding up, 4 rails? Since there's only 2 rails on the ends of any pool table, then that means you only double the playing surface, then add 2 rails at 2"+2"=4" wide so 100"+4"=104 +4" of ghost rails = 9' or 108"

No pool table in the world is measured like a TV....LMAOOOOO

Greg with Diamond figured that if a 7' table was 40"×80" and a 9ft was 50"×100".....then an 8ft should be right in between at 45"×90".....OK, only problem with that math is, a true 7' table has a 38"×76" playing surface, remember 38"+2"+2"=42" which equals 3 1/2'... 36"+6"=42" so, going by halfway between a 7ft and a 9ft, a real 8ft pool table would have a playing surface of 44"×88".....44"+2"+2"=48" x 88"+2"+2"+ 4" ghost rails = 96"

Valley 88....-13" rails = 37 1/2"×75"...called Valley 6.5 ft.
True 7ft other mfg = 38"×76" playing surface
Valley 93....-13" rails = 3 1/2'×7'...40"×80" over sized 7ft
Valley 101" -13" rails = 44"×88" true 8ft.
46"×92" Pro8, over sized 8ft,
50"×100" 9ft
56"×112" 10ft.

Then you have the oddball 45"×90" playing surface Diamond calls their 8ft, but they're not the first to build this size table, National billiards built coin ops in this size as well as 46"×92" many years ago.
 
Last edited:
realkingcobra said:
After i stopped laughing, ...
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure what you're laughing at, but if you thought I was saying a 9-footer has a playing surface 108" long and a standard 7-footer has a playing surface 84" long, no, no, no, of course not.

The 7, 8, and 9-foot labels can be thought of as "nominal" (not actual) lengths computed as 2 x (playing surface width plus width of two cushions). So 2 x (50 + 2 + 2) = the "nominal" 9-foot length.

A second way to think of it (as you sort of said) is to think of a square table, with cushions on all 4 sides (but no rails), and butt two of them up against each other. For a 50" playing surface and 2" cushions, that produces a length of 108", a "9-footer." Again, that's a "nominal" length, not any real dimension of the table.

The standard 7-footers (38" x 76" playing surface) and 8-footers (44" x 88" playing surface) can be thought of the same way:
(38 + 4) x 2 = 84
(44 + 4) x 2 = 96

The "odd" sizes of playing surfaces, obviously, do not produce 7-. 8-, or 9-foot "nominal" sizes under that formula.
 
AtLarge said:
I don't know for sure what you're laughing at, but if you thought I was saying a 9-footer has a playing surface 108" long and a standard 7-footer has a playing surface 84" long, no, no, no, of course not.

The 7, 8, and 9-foot labels can be thought of as "nominal" (not actual) lengths computed as 2 x (playing surface width plus width of two cushions). So 2 x (50 + 2 + 2) = the "nominal" 9-foot length.

A second way to think of it (as you sort of said) is to think of a square table, with cushions on all 4 sides (but no rails), and butt two of them up against each other. For a 50" playing surface and 2" cushions, that produces a length of 108", a "9-footer." Again, that's a "nominal" length, not any real dimension of the table.

The standard 7-footers (38" x 76" playing surface) and 8-footers (44" x 88" playing surface) can be thought of the same way:
(38 + 4) x 2 = 84
(44 + 4) x 2 = 96

The "odd" sizes of playing surfaces, obviously, do not produce 7-. 8-, or 9-foot "nominal" sizes under that formula.
Click to expand...

The only table today as far as I'm concerned that hasn't been distorted in size, is the 9fts.
 
AtLarge said:
I don't know for sure what you're laughing at, but if you thought I was saying a 9-footer has a playing surface 108" long and a standard 7-footer has a playing surface 84" long, no, no, no, of course not.

The 7, 8, and 9-foot labels can be thought of as "nominal" (not actual) lengths computed as 2 x (playing surface width plus width of two cushions). So 2 x (50 + 2 + 2) = the "nominal" 9-foot length.

A second way to think of it (as you sort of said) is to think of a square table, with cushions on all 4 sides (but no rails), and butt two of them up against each other. For a 50" playing surface and 2" cushions, that produces a length of 108", a "9-footer." Again, that's a "nominal" length, not any real dimension of the table.

The standard 7-footers (38" x 76" playing surface) and 8-footers (44" x 88" playing surface) can be thought of the same way:
(38 + 4) x 2 = 84
(44 + 4) x 2 = 96

The "odd" sizes of playing surfaces, obviously, do not produce 7-. 8-, or 9-foot "nominal" sizes under that formula.
Click to expand...

I was laughing at comparing pool table sizes as the same way TV's are measured, diagonally...LOL
 
AtLarge said:
Right -- no oversize 9-footers.

Were 10-footers always 56" x 112" playing surface?
Click to expand...

Yes, but went out of production so long ago, that anyone building them today would be more of a custom build size as opposed to a production built table, just not enough demand for the 10fts anymore. There use to be a 2'×4' coin operated pool table built along time ago as well, but never again, not today.
 
AtLarge said:
The diagonal dimension you state would vary from table to table depending on the shelf depth. On a standard Diamond 9-footer, it's about 111," not 108".

As Bob said, (50" playing surface + 4" for the cushions) x 2 = 108" = "9-footer". So 9 feet is a nominal, not an actual, table dimension.
Click to expand...
How do you figure 4 inches for each cushion when each cushion is usually around 2 inches wide, which would make 104"? 9 feet is 108". Are you considering 4 inches for each cushion as counting the underside of the cushion as well? Actually when you are re-covering a table, you cut the rail strips 6" wide.

When I'm dealing with a home pool table customer over the phone trying to determine what size table they have so that I can give them an accurate price quote and so that I will order the correct amount of cloth for the job, my method of measuring makes the most sense for the novice customer for coming out to extremely close to the standard table sizes - 9, 8, or 7 foot tables - it keeps it simple for that customer that really is not an expert.

Obviously a much simpler method to determine table size is to determine center-to-center measurements on two adjacent rail sights on the same rail. 10-foot table = 14", 9-foot table = 12.5", oversized 8'foot table = 11.5", 8-foot table = 11", Diamond barbox 7-foot table = 10", and most other manufacturers 7-foot tables = 9.75" or 9.5". Problem is some customers have a problem over the phone understanding how to take a center-to-center measurement on the rail sights.
 
Last edited:
ChrisinNC said:
How do you figure 4 inches for each cushion when each cushion is usually around 2 inches wide, which would make 104"? 9 feet is 108". Are you considering 4 inches for each cushion as counting the underside of the cushion as well? My method of measuring makes the most sense for coming out to extremely close to the standard table sizes - 9, 8, or 7 foot tables.

Obviously a much simpler way is to measure a table is determine center-to-center measurements on two adjacent rail sights on the same rail. 10-foot table = 14", 9-foot table = 12.5", oversized 8'foot table = 11.5", 8-foot table = 11", Diamond barbox 7-foot table = 10", and most other manufacturers 7-foot tables = 9.75" or 9.5".
Click to expand...
Tables are twice as long as they are wide right? So take a 9ft being 50" wide, plus the width of 2 cushions at 2" each, that's 50"+2"+2"=54" right? Now double that, that would be 108" correct? Only problem is, when doubling it you're adding 4 2" wide cushions to the ends of a 9ft table when there's only 2 cushions there. Because 50"+2"+2" doubled is 50"+50"+2"+2"+2"+2"=108" now take back the 2 extra cushions which equals 4" and you end up with 104".

Not all manufacturers today build tables to the correct specs anymore, which, depending on the make of the table, can make some tables little more challenging to work on, especially when trying to adjust the size of the pockets, rebuild the sub rails while maintaining the correct playing surface. Some manufacturers make cushions less than 2" wide, while others make their cushions wider than 2".

Table dimensions were figured out a long time ago, before modern era tables come about. Back when rails were T bolted, 9ft slates and cushions worked together. Antique T rail slates were made to the exact specs to separate the finish of the rails at 54" wide. Then when they were bolted to the sides of the slate they were exactly 54" apart, then cushions and cushion blocks were added to the rail frame being exactly 2" wide each, which then gave you the 50" playing surface. Today's modern era slates are now all 3" wider in width and length to provide the surface space needed to bolt the rails through to slates to attach them, but now today, the playing surface is subject to vary depending on who's working on the tables, and the type of pocket castings used to join the rails together....leaving the playing surface open to interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top