Harder 8' or 9' for 14.1 Straight Pool?

TWOFORPOOL

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Which is harder to run balls on playing 14.1 straight pool? 8 foot (standard or oversized) or 9 foot table.

Please respond only if you have ran 100+ balls in straight pool since real experience counts.
 

DecentShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Which is harder to run balls on playing 14.1 straight pool? 8 foot (standard or oversized) or 9 foot table.

Please respond only if you have ran 100+ balls in straight pool since real experience counts.

I don't care about OP qualifiers. I've played straight pool a handful of times, got to 20, missed and I'm good on 14.1 for now. I believe the answer to this question is the same no matter what game you plug in. Neither is harder or easier, its simply an equal but different set of things to consider for every condition change.
 

DecentShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
As one who runs 14s with relative ease:eek:

I do have thoughts on which is harder but would contend the difference in difficulty between 8/9 is closer to 0 than it is huge.

Specifically, 8 has less room, closer shots, 9 more room, further shots. Its always a trade off.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Responses to this question will be extremely few due to your requirement to run 100+ balls in order to respond. If 98 counts, I don’t know about an 8-foot vs a 9-foot, but a 10-footer is far tougher than either of those to run balls.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
This question has already been extensively answered in the threads about John Schmidt's run. You might look in those.;)

8-foot is much easier.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Go play 50 innings on a 7’, 8’, and 9’ table. I’d bet the stars that any player, from D to pro would run way way way more on each size smaller.

<=== has personally done it on 7 and 9 foot.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Go play 50 innings on a 7’, 8’, and 9’ table. I’d bet the stars that any player, from D to pro would run way way way more on each size smaller.

<=== has personally done it on 7 and 9 foot.

Yeah? Well, I tried to only use bottom half my table and that's only 50".

Why come I no run lotsaball?
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
My high run is higher on a 9 footer than an 8 footer, but of course I do play on 9 footers almost exclusively nowadays. I've broken the 100 mark on both. My 8 foot record is lower than on the 9. I haven't run those kinds of numbers in some time. Back is acting up and have taken many breaks from the game in the last few years for that reason. I've also not played as much straight pool when I have been playing. I'm back at it now, though.

It's hard to make good comparisons, because the 8 footer I've played the most on was more like a home table, slow rails and big pockets, while the 9 footers I play on are tight, double shimmed, with bouncy cushions.

Most likely the 8 is easier, based on length of shots etc. There is more congestion, but hard to get into really big trouble on the 8. Now if it was a REALLY tight 8 foot table (which is hard to come by), with really bouncy rails, like a tightened Diamond, then I'm not sure. Might be tough to negotiate traffic then, and hard to shoot the inevitable combinations.

If you are interested in the musings of a pretty average pool player, like myself (at least as far as avid straight poolers), here is more: I find that I like to finesse the rack more on an 8 footer. Sometimes you get punished if you go to hard into the rack, by having balls group up on the rails. On the 9 footer I like to slam the rack more, since it tends to pay off more. It also seems a lot easier to get good breakshots on the 8 footer and key balls seemed less critical. Going up and down the table was no biggie and ending up with a long breakshot was not the end of the world. Now, if it was extremely tight, like 4 inch pockets, then that might compensate and make it almost as tough. With any kind of normal pocket dimensions, I do think 8 footers are easier. If you play a lot on the 8 footer, I'd suggest perfecting under the rack breakshots, and breakshots where you go into the top of the pack or side breakshots played with force draw. Often the perfect Mosconi breakshot can give you trouble (on fast cloth). On the table I played, the "perfect" breakshot would often cause 3 or 4 balls to be pulled down onto the bottom rail. Not good. That was compounded by the rails being slow, I think, which is probably typical for most 8 foot home tables. There is not a whole lot of room to maneuver under the rack after the first breakshot on an 8 footer, and very easy to get doubled up down there. You need the cueball at center table. Side breakshots with follow can sometimes end up below the rack because of kisses and just because the cueball expends its energy. Those are my findings.
 
Last edited:

Nine ... corner

BANNED
Silver Member
I don't "qualify" to respond here due to never running over 100 in 14.1 but here is my two cents anyway. I have an eight footer at home due to space limitations but regularly play on nine footers … mostly nine ball. I run out much more on 9's than 8's. Sorry for breaking your rules OP. :p:p
 

Mick

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'm a 50+ runner on 7', 8', and 9', and in my experience 8' is easiest, then 7', then 9'. 10' is much tougher than the 3 smaller tables.
 

maha

from way back when
Silver Member
to equal out you need to open the pockets as the table gets bigger which the opposite happens.
on a nine foot table with equal proportional sized pockets as the 8 footer it would be about the same.

shorter shots on the 8 footer versus more open space on the nine.
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just like everything else in life, it depends.

8’ and 9’ tables come in all kinds of flavors. Playing on an older GC v a Diamond, all will say the GC is easier. It’s the same for 8’ tables. So, it’s tough to say. There’s also the issue of skill level. The skill of a 100 ball runner is not the same as that of a 200 ball runner. Same for 300. The skill levels goes up exponentially. And I think that once you get past 300, table size doesn’t matter so much.

For mere mortals I’d have to say the the 8’ is tougher due to more congestion and the lesser skill factor.

Lou Figueroa
 

JazzyJeff87

AzB Plutonium Member
Silver Member
I don't "qualify" to respond here due to never running over 100 in 14.1 but here is my two cents anyway. I have an eight footer at home due to space limitations but regularly play on nine footers … mostly nine ball. I run out much more on 9's than 8's. Sorry for breaking your rules OP. :p:p

Really? I could see rotation being more difficult to run out on a smaller table but 9 ball isn’t even cluttered on a 7’. It’s like a joke almost, at least for the first 2 days, if you exclusively play on a 9’ and then go play nine bull on BB.

I think everything gets easier as the table gets smaller. Congestion is definitely a factor but you have so much less space to traverse for things to go wrong. Banks are easier, position lines are easier to judge, breakouts are easier to manage.

And for anecdotal evidence I can run more balls on my oversized 8’ in straight pool than on a 9’. And I’ve run even more one time on a diamond 7’.

Unless something strange happens at the highest skill levels of 14.1 where all these things turn inside out the 9’ is only bested by the 10’+ in difficulty
 

jrctherake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Responses to this question will be extremely few due to your requirement to run 100+ balls in order to respond. If 98 counts, I don’t know about an 8-foot vs a 9-foot, but a 10-footer is far tougher than either of those to run balls.

Chris.....do you have to remind us of your runs?????

Lol.....

I'm j/k......buddy.


OP....My high run is 156. Can't do it today but I do have opinions from table to table.

Like has been said:

Smaller table = shorter shots but tighter shape

Bigger table = longer shots but more error for position.


Also, IMO, banking comes into play more often on smaller tables although, most 14.1 purest look at a run with banks as being "unclean"...

Me??? I don't care how you pull um off. If you can poke 100+- balls in the pocket.....your good to go no matter how many hero shots you have to come with.

Jeff
 

mikemosconi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
to equal out you need to open the pockets as the table gets bigger which the opposite happens.
on a nine foot table with equal proportional sized pockets as the 8 footer it would be about the same.

shorter shots on the 8 footer versus more open space on the nine.

I would agree with this assessment- I have run a lot of balls on both size tables- 90% of the balls in each rack are pocketed in 4 pockets closest to the rack. if you can run a lot of balls; then the additional clustering on an 8 foot cancels out the additional length on a 9 foot with both having equal size pockets. The person who says an 8 foot is much easier- I would like to understand how they come to that conclusion. I don't think ANY game is MUCH easier on an 8 foot vs. a 9 foot. The jump from an 8 foot to a 10 foot is huge, as is the jump from a 7 foot to a 9 foot - when you have played almost exclusively on one or the other. An 8 foot oversize and a 9 foot are very comparable. All of this is my experience and opinion only.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
At two different BCA Trade Shows, I ran into John Schmidt shooting 14.1 on a small table. Both times he ran ~180 within three tries.

In 1975 I met Jimmy Caras at a tournament and asked him specifically about whether an 8-foot table was easier than a 9-foot. He said that a good player would never miss on an 8-foot table unless he got tired.

I think harder/easier depends on the skills of the player. If the player can control the cue ball to the inch, the smaller table poses no problem. If the player likes to come off cushions and roll the cue ball a few feet every shot, more elbow room may help. I think Caras and others from that time did precise position.
 
Top