Gabriels tables at 14.1 tournament-any comments?
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
mikepage said:
As Charlie said after the event, its the first tourny they have ever run that he hasn't had one player complain about the tables. They played great, although a little loose.
Interestingly though every single player I spoke to, including Hunter, Schmidt, Hohman etc said they where PERFECT for 14.1, this suprised me as I had heard many people on here say that 14.1 should be played on tight pockets.
the main reason seemed to be a) Fans want to see high runs, and b) if the tables where too tight it would be too easy to play safe (eg by simply sending the cb up the table) and we'd have marthon matches.
I spoke to Danny Harriman and he said that the pockets were extremely loose. He said that during his match with Max that Max had hit a ball down the rail and it hit the rail about a foot and a half before the pocket and it still went in. He said that 2 balls would easily pass through the pockets. Danny also said that the tables didn't hold water very well.
I spoke to a pro who finished in the top 16, who said the tables were great, but not quite difficult enough to put a high premium on "old school" straight pool knowledge (though obviously straight pool knowledge helps on any type of equipment).
MIND YOU, this player was NOT complaining (only responding to an intrusive question from me) - and had ABSOLUTELY NO COMPLAINTS about the tournament, and thinks it was A FABULOUS, FABULOUS EVENT; and couldn't speak highly enough of the organizers who put on such a great event out of love for the game.
MIND YOU, this player was NOT complaining (only responding to an intrusive question from me) - and had ABSOLUTELY NO COMPLAINTS about the tournament, and thinks it was A FABULOUS, FABULOUS EVENT; and couldn't speak highly enough of the organizers who put on such a great event out of love for the game.
Last edited:
They where a little loose, but the same for both players, I think every player had a few balls go in that shouldn't have and visa versa, it probably evened itself out over the tournament, of course we all remember the ones against us hehe
I hear you wille, I was suprised as you to hear that feeback but I see both sides. Personally I was glad they where loose as it helped a part time hack like myself but I remember quite a few times when I was out my seat thinking a player had missed and the ball dropped. Hohman had 3 in the semi finals against Max for example.
I hear you wille, I was suprised as you to hear that feeback but I see both sides. Personally I was glad they where loose as it helped a part time hack like myself but I remember quite a few times when I was out my seat thinking a player had missed and the ball dropped. Hohman had 3 in the semi finals against Max for example.
NYC cue dude
Banned
gabriels
After seven matches I felt the tables played extremely well. The construction is top notch and got an opportunity to see them being assembled. I was surprised to see that the slate was almost two inches thick and only one piece. It had a steel I beam support and was told that the table was almost 2x the weight of a gold crown. The rails played very true and the pockets were not easy or too tough. There was a day and a half that the humidity in the room was VERY high and they played tighter during that time. As I recall though, two balls did NOT fit into the pocket at the same time.
rg
After seven matches I felt the tables played extremely well. The construction is top notch and got an opportunity to see them being assembled. I was surprised to see that the slate was almost two inches thick and only one piece. It had a steel I beam support and was told that the table was almost 2x the weight of a gold crown. The rails played very true and the pockets were not easy or too tough. There was a day and a half that the humidity in the room was VERY high and they played tighter during that time. As I recall though, two balls did NOT fit into the pocket at the same time.
rg
NYC cue dude said:
RG,
I think I phrased things badly (I'll correct my original post). The report I got said that the tables did play great and were of average difficulty. I think this pro felt that extremely difficult tables put a slightly higher premium on high percentage "old school" 14.1, and that these tables weren't quite of that difficulty. They certainly were not "easy" tables, just easier than some brutal tables. I apologize for any confusion I caused (I shouldn't be doing these posts at work
).
Last edited:
Hi Mike:
How go the bufflos?
Gabries tables use 2 inch slate.
I had a chance ask Mr. Hopkin specificly about the table. He mentioned he hasn't seen a table playing this well in a long time.
I believe Gabriels is working very closely with Diamonds in the US.
come watch some one pocket : )
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=34200
cheers
Wei
How go the bufflos?
Gabries tables use 2 inch slate.
I had a chance ask Mr. Hopkin specificly about the table. He mentioned he hasn't seen a table playing this well in a long time.
I believe Gabriels is working very closely with Diamonds in the US.
come watch some one pocket : )
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=34200
cheers
Wei
hi bill
i thought the tables were perfect.they were exactly 4.5 at the opening,the us open was 5 inch exactly.the rail speed was perfect not boingy not dead.for someone to say they were easy is ridiculous.the reason they look easy is because those were the best players in the world.when you have clean cloth and balls and fair pockets you get to see the true ability of the best players .and to prove what a great game it is one of the best if not the best won the tourney.i feel honered that thorston set a record on me it was impressive.
i thought the tables were perfect.they were exactly 4.5 at the opening,the us open was 5 inch exactly.the rail speed was perfect not boingy not dead.for someone to say they were easy is ridiculous.the reason they look easy is because those were the best players in the world.when you have clean cloth and balls and fair pockets you get to see the true ability of the best players .and to prove what a great game it is one of the best if not the best won the tourney.i feel honered that thorston set a record on me it was impressive.
john schmidt said:
Classy post, John. You, too, put on a great show at the event. As you suggest, the equipment looked easy because the level of play was absolutely sensational. I've argued before on this forum that this was the strongest field in a straight pool event since the 1992 US Open 14.1 event, and nothing I saw in New Jersey would cause me to back down from that statement.
It was an unforgettable event. Let's do it again soon!
Mike how about posting some up close pictures of your table. Our local pool room is considering getting one more table and can't decide what kind.
I suggested they consider a Gabriel because I knew you were happy with it. Doesn't look too loose for me.
JoeyA (can't see any more and needs loose pockets)
I suggested they consider a Gabriel because I knew you were happy with it. Doesn't look too loose for me.
JoeyA (can't see any more and needs loose pockets)
mikepage said:
The tables played perfectly. On the first day, they were definitely quite loose, but that was just the new cloth.
John is right; the rail speed was matching the table speed, which is a key ingredient in position play obviously.
But as to the pocket size, I never knew that was a function of the table itself. When buying a table, can't you choose what pocket size you want? And even after that, tighten it further with shims if you choose? I am not sure I understand why people are asking if Gabriels play tight... can't I make a Brunswick play tighter than a Gabriels, and a Gabriels play tighter than a Brunswick?
Does it have something to do with the cut of the pockets, and/or a deep shelf?
Anyway, it is quickly becoming apparent that Brunswick better do something fast... Diamonds and Gabriels are so clearly better tables that I can't see why anyone would choose a Brunswick anymore (especially the GC IVs).
- Steve
John is right; the rail speed was matching the table speed, which is a key ingredient in position play obviously.
But as to the pocket size, I never knew that was a function of the table itself. When buying a table, can't you choose what pocket size you want? And even after that, tighten it further with shims if you choose? I am not sure I understand why people are asking if Gabriels play tight... can't I make a Brunswick play tighter than a Gabriels, and a Gabriels play tighter than a Brunswick?
Does it have something to do with the cut of the pockets, and/or a deep shelf?
Anyway, it is quickly becoming apparent that Brunswick better do something fast... Diamonds and Gabriels are so clearly better tables that I can't see why anyone would choose a Brunswick anymore (especially the GC IVs).
- Steve
My thoughts exactly! The brand of table has nothing to do with the pocket size. As you say, they can be ordered or shimmed as one likes.Steve Lipsky said:
I do like the idea of a 2" slate, however. What a table!Doc