Is there a big difference playing 9-ball on bar tables (3 1/2 x 7) and 9 footers?
LWW said:24.5 square feet versus 40.5 square feet of playing area.
The equalizer on many/most bar tables however are:
-A boat anchor for a cue ball.
-Worn out rails and cloth.
-Dirty table and balls.
-Not even close to level.
LWW
Housestick said:"I think you left one out-
-most people get as good as they are going to get in about 2 weeks."
Come on now..thats not true. There are many guys that have very good games who played strictly on bar tables for decades when they were coming up. Dave Matlock and Reed Pierce come to mind. These guys played on nothing but bar tables for forever and their games translated fine to the 9 footer later in life. You can learn a lot on the little table.
ironman said:Are you serious? Reed won the US Open. David is one of the best all around players in the U.S. David just won the Banks at DCC last year and happens to be one of the best 3 cushion players inthe country. Plus he just happens to play pretty sporty on a snooker table.
Face it, they learned to play on a childs table,got bored, and moved on. There are exceptions, but, bar tables promote nothing more than mediocre play.
Housestick said:I'm well aware of all of those facts ironman...both of those individuals when they were coming up played on bar tables though and they had success in a relatively small amount of time after making the adjustment to bigger tables. Reed hardly ever played on a big table untill a few years before winning that open. And thats a fact. I totally agree with you though, a bar table can only take you so far in most cases, but the previous poster was taking it a little too far. I don't know what you're getting at to be honest with you...what you're saying and what I'm saying are the same thing. Did you read my previous post before I made that comment? I told the guy that a bar table was for amatures. I'm not comparing a bar table to a big table. There is no comparison. I'm just saying that its better than nothing.