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

[KRJ]

Great info RKC. :grin-square:

 

[eastcoast_chris]

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'.

Pythagoras doesn't agree.

sgrt((50x50)+(100x100)) = 111.8 .. not 108

 

[jokrswylde]

Great info RKC. :grin-square:

Indeed. Thanks for the info from all. So to be clear, If I have a valley 88, it is not a "true" 7ft, and if I have a diamond 7ft pro-am, it is not a true 7 foot, and if I have a valley 93, it is not a true 7 ft, YET all can be, and often are, referred to standard 7 ft. tables I know it was mentioned that other mfgrs. make a true 7 footer, but Is there an example of a commonly used barbox that is a "true" 7 footer?

I have an 88 at home, play league on 88's and 93's depending on the night, and regularly play on 7 ft pro ams. I really can't tell much difference other than the ball seems to explode off the rails of the diamonds adn the pockets are a touch less forgiving... the joys of being a lowly banger!

 

[realkingcobra]

Indeed. Thanks for the info from all. So to be clear, If I have a valley 88, it is not a "true" 7ft, and if I have a diamond 7ft pro-am, it is not a true 7 foot, and if I have a valley 93, it is not a true 7 ft, YET all can be, and often are, referred to standard 7 ft. tables I know it was mentioned that other mfgrs. make a true 7 footer, but Is there an example of a commonly used barbox that is a "true" 7 footer?

I have an 88 at home, play league on 88's and 93's depending on the night, and regularly play on 7 ft pro ams. I really can't tell much difference other than the ball seems to explode off the rails of the diamonds adn the pockets are a touch less forgiving... the joys of being a lowly banger!

No one builds the true 7ft bb tables today that I'm aware of, that's the 38"×76" playing surface bb.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Pythagoras doesn't agree.

sgrt((50x50)+(100x100)) = 111.8 .. not 108

Yeah, I just measured one of our tables again and got a similar measurement, so my system is apparently flawed. Best system I've heard on here so far is RKC's system - width of table's playing surface (cushion nose to cushion nose) + 4 inches for rails gives you the width, and times two gives you the length which should be exactly 96" or 108" or 120" for an 8, 9, or 10 foot table..

 

[Bob Jewett]

Yeah, I just measured one of our tables again and got a similar measurement, so my system is apparently flawed. Best system I've heard on hear so far is RKC's system - width of table's playing surface (cushion nose to cushion nose) + 4 inches for rails gives you the width, and times two gives you the length.

As stated in post 8?:wink:

 

[garczar]

Sorry if i sound stupid(won't be last time) but why isn't rail width figured in the length measurement? Am i missing something here?

 

[AtLarge]

As stated in post 8?:wink:

And several others!

 

[AtLarge]

Sorry if i sound stupid(won't be last time) but why isn't rail width figured in the length measurement? Am i missing something here?

We were just discussing why, e.g., a "9-footer" is given that name. Does it really have any true 9-foot dimension? The rail widths, which can vary quite a bit, don't figure into the reason for calling it a 9-footer. It's a "nominal" designation (maybe that's not a great word for it), not a true table dimension.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Sorry if i sound stupid(won't be last time) but why isn't rail width figured in the length measurement? Am i missing something here?

The nominal lengths are all just marketing talk. The standard widths and lengths of the playing area are both derived from the "width of the green part" rule.

How wide the rails are is up to the manufacturer/designer.

 

[garczar]

The nominal lengths are all just marketing talk. The standard widths and lengths of the playing area are both derived from the "width of the green part" rule.

How wide the rails are is up to the manufacturer/designer.

So cushion-nose to cushion-nose(L &W) is actual measurement of playing size, right? Thanks

 

[AtLarge]

So cushion-nose to cushion-nose(L &W) is actual measurement of playing size, right? Thanks

Yes, the 38x76, 44x88, 50x100 dimensions (and others) are nose to nose.

 

[AtLarge]

Pythagoras doesn't agree.

sgrt((50x50)+(100x100)) = 111.8 .. not 108

Chris wasn't talking about the full diagonal of a 50x100 rectangle. He was talking about (see post #5) "diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate at center of one corner pocket to the opposite diagonal corner dropoff point on the slate," which is often a bit different from (generally less than) the full diagonal.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So cushion-nose to cushion-nose(L &W) is actual measurement of playing size, right? Thanks

And you could probably win some bar bets because the actual distance the cue ball travels up and down the table on a "9-foot" is about 98 inches which is much closer to 8 feet (96 inches) than 9 feet. Even the 100-inch measurement is closer to 8 feet.

 

[garczar]

And you could probably win some bar bets because the actual distance the cue ball travels up and down the table on a "9-foot" is about 98 inches which is much closer to 8 feet (96 inches) than 9 feet. Even the 100-inch measurement is closer to 8 feet.

LOL. Better pass on that. I like my thumbs intact.

 

[ChrisinNC]

We were just discussing why, e.g., a "9-footer" is given that name. Does it really have any true 9-foot dimension? The rail widths, which can vary quite a bit, don't figure into the reason for calling it a 9-footer. It's a "nominal" designation (maybe that's not a great word for it), not a true table dimension.

Another way to measure it, if you took a slate measurement without the rails on the table, a 9-foot table is generally 107" edge-of-slate to edge-of-slate, and an 8-foot table is generally 95". That comes within 1 inch of being exactly 9' and 8' - close enough for me!

 

[AtLarge]

Another way to measure it, if you took a slate measurement without the rails on the table, a 9-foot table is generally 107" edge-of-slate to edge-of-slate, and an 8-foot table is generally 95". That comes within 1 inch of being exactly 9' and 8' - close enough for me!

So it's a "several-things-are-close-to-9-feet" table.

 

[realkingcobra]

Another way to measure it, if you took a slate measurement without the rails on the table, a 9-foot table is generally 107" edge-of-slate to edge-of-slate, and an 8-foot table is generally 95". That comes within 1 inch of being exactly 9' and 8' - close enough for me!

All modern era slates with bolt through rails are 7" wider and 7" longer than the playing surface of the table, that's because the nose of the cushion to the bottom of the rail at the edge of the slate occupies 3 1/2" on the surface of the slate for mounting purposes, it don't matter who built the table.

 

[northshoremb]

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.

Thank you so much !!!!! So then our 93" tables are the oversized 7 footers. I knew hat it made no sense to measure a table diagonal cuase need to have proper proportion in width so diamond system worked. Is there any other difference between 88 and 93" tables like are pockets same width or hats all based on how it was built