Action challenge on a 10-footer - anyone interested?

smashmouth said:
I contacted Diamond a while back regarding a 10 footer and received the run around, considering they are the reps here for Gabriels you would have thought it would be very doable

I think Olhausen may make them, but any custom table shop could easily do it

for the record, I think 10 footers are the Grand Daddys of the game and should have a place in todays pool scene
Click to expand...

I called Diamond a year or two ago regarding a 10 foot table and they said that they did not make them.

I do know that you can order a 10 foot Champion Pro from Olhausen.
 
JCIN, I think we need to see your reaction here, what do you think about fund-raising campaign?
 
I spoke to Justin (JCIN) about this thread. He was excited about it and said that if we get enough people interested he would do more than just make it happen. He would make it something special!

I don't really think we need 1000 people, but we need more than 2 or 3!

If you guys are interested in watching the best players in the world play on a 5 x 10, then post here that you would be willing to put up just $25.00 to see it. When JCIN sees enough interest, he will chime in on how he can make it work.

C'mon AZB'ers, Show your interest by posting that you will put up the measly $25.00 to watch some of the best pool ever.

JCIN, you know you'll get my money, so keep watching!


Royce Bunnell
www.obcues.com
 
all around

$25. I'm in.

My vote would be to see an all around 9 ball/one pocket/straight pool challenge like the Schmidt/Harriman match.

Who's coming with me???
 
As long as the pockets are tight I would like to see this match. It sounds like $25 bucks well spent to me!
 
Royce,

I believe I have a cue you may have made a few years back. Could you confirm. I tried to PM you, but it won't let me.
 
definitely in! you've got my 25 dollars!

would love to see shane playing some ten ball, maybe against John?

ten foot diamond FTW!
 
The best players on a 4.5 x 9 should be the best players on a 5 x 10 - at least that's the way it worked in reverse when tournaments went from the big table to the smaller table in the 40's.

I've heard or read what Mosconi, Crane and Caras had to say on the difference in difficulty (all three were champs on both sizes). They said the 5 x 10 was much more difficult than the smaller table and made 14.1 a more offensive (as opposed to defensive) game. That's one of the reasons the change was made in the first place - longer runs, fewer safeties. The other was fitting more tables in a room.
 
not only I'm in with my share but a friend of mine who does not post here is also ready to take part. Count two. (Maybe even more from here, don't know how many yet. Heck, the whole pool world should be in just for the sake of curiosity, LOL.) But I would also like to see at least two games played, 9-ball (or 10-ball) and definitely straight pool.
 
Rich93 said:
The best players on a 4.5 x 9 should be the best players on a 5 x 10 - at least that's the way it worked in reverse when tournaments went from the big table to the smaller table in the 40's.

I've heard or read what Mosconi, Crane and Caras had to say on the difference in difficulty (all three were champs on both sizes). They said the 5 x 10 was much more difficult than the smaller table and made 14.1 a more offensive (as opposed to defensive) game. That's one of the reasons the change was made in the first place - longer runs, fewer safeties. The other was fitting more tables in a room.
Click to expand...

I've heard the same thing about Mosconi's views on the smaller table. I think he said something like there didn't seem to be much of a point in even playing safe on the smaller tables because it was so easy to pocket balls.
 
i always thought 10 footers had snooker pockets???? i am probably wrong but i swore i played on one.
 
Rich93 said:
The best players on a 4.5 x 9 should be the best players on a 5 x 10 - at least that's the way it worked in reverse when tournaments went from the big table to the smaller table in the 40's.

I've heard or read what Mosconi, Crane and Caras had to say on the difference in difficulty (all three were champs on both sizes). They said the 5 x 10 was much more difficult than the smaller table and made 14.1 a more offensive (as opposed to defensive) game. That's one of the reasons the change was made in the first place - longer runs, fewer safeties. The other was fitting more tables in a room.
Click to expand...

I would agree that 14.1 would be more difficult on a 5x10 particularly when the cue ball is back against the back rail with no shot. Thats what Mosconi was talking about - not 9B. The other games unless the pockets were cut down may very well be the same or easier. I would pay to see a payball or ring game on a 3 1/2 or 3 3/4 pocket 5x10 table or a 6x12 snooker table. The cream of the crop on the 9 foot table will be just as dominant on the big table. I would be curious if they would blast away on the break or try something more defensive as it would be easier to break dry than on a 9 footer.
 
cjl0s said:
I would agree that 14.1 would be more difficult on a 5x10 particularly when the cue ball is back against the back rail with no shot. Thats what Mosconi was talking about - not 9B. The other games unless the pockets were cut down may very well be the same or easier. I would pay to see a payball or ring game on a 3 1/2 or 3 3/4 pocket 5x10 table or a 6x12 snooker table. The cream of the crop on the 9 foot table will be just as dominant on the big table. I would be curious if they would blast away on the break or try something more defensive as it would be easier to break dry than on a 9 footer.
Click to expand...

I was told by more than one world champion that 9 ball on a 5 x 10 table is very hard and much different than on a smaller table. They said that in the old days if a player was getting the 8 ball as a spot on a 5 x 10 table it was a decent spot, it meant more than on a small table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top