JA and Earl confirm it, 5x10 tables are a must.

[Celtic]

Listen to Nick Varner, he is correct about that.

Nick Varner said nothing whatsoever of the sort. Stop putting words into his mouth that he did NOT say. I asked him that exact question being discussed on the stream and his comment was that YES, the game would be better for the professional game on 10-foot tables BUT that it was hard enough stopping the game from going from the 9-foots to the 7-foots as it is, let alone moving from 9-foots to 10-foots, as much as that is the proper direction.

And Cuesmith said it exactly, the lucky rolls are mitigated alot by a difficult table where even professional level players miss at times. The easier the table, the more the luck becomes the key factor in who wins the match and the more the shortstops you mention can hang with the top pros because the ease of the table blurs the distinction in skill level between the two players.

How does luck mean more on a bar box then a 10-foot table? Do you really need to ask? OK then, if you are really confused and unable to comprehend...

At hill hill in 10-ball on a bar box if you break and don't make a ball or the cueball gets kissed in after you squatted it perfectly in the center of the table against a shortstop you are probably finished because the table is easy and hundreds of players on this planet are a strong favorite to run the open rack.

At hill hill in 10-ball on a 10-foot table with 4.5 inch pockets if you break and dont make a ball or the cueball gets kissed in after you squatted if perfectly int he center of the table against a shortstop you are not dead in the water against a shortstop because he still has to run out the rack on a table that takes extreme skill to do so, far more then the bar box. Your bad luck will not leave a fairly easy out, it will still leave the player needing to shoot an out that takes alot of skill.

And to top things off, even GETTING to the hill against a top pro on a 10-foot table would take alot of skill, luck alone is not going to get you there and the table is not so easy that it blurs the difference in skill levels. You know this, which is exactly why you say those shortstops are not longer going to want to play in tournaments, they have lesser skill but atm on easy tables they know that with a few rolls they still have a chance to beat players alot better then themselves. So, uh ya, thus you pretty much knew already exactly what you feigned ignorance about.

 

[Wags]

Nick Varner said nothing whatsoever of the sort. Stop putting words into his mouth that he did NOT say. I asked him that exact question being discussed on the stream and his comment was that YES, the game would be better for the professional game on 10-foot tables BUT that it was hard enough stopping the game from going from the 9-foots to the 7-foots as it is, let alone moving from 9-foots to 10-foots, as much as that is the proper direction.

And Cuesmith said it exactly, the lucky rolls are mitigated alot by a difficult table where even professional level players miss at times. The easier the table, the more the luck becomes the key factor in who wins the match and the more the shortstops you mention can hang with the top pros because the ease of the table blurs the distinction in skill level between the two players.

I am sorry I misquoted/misunderstood what was said by Nick.

So-o-o-o, you are rooting for the pros to miss?

 

[justadub]

So-o-o-o, you are rooting for the pros to miss?

Occasionally, yes.

Running consecutive rack after rack is amazing, but I like seeing the best having to struggle like the rest of us, if only a little bit.

 

[Celtic]

I am sorry I misquoted/misunderstood what was said by Nick.

So-o-o-o, you are rooting for the pros to miss?

Do you know what I really want?

I want to know who the best pool player in the world is. I have been a fan of this game for decades, I watch alot of pro pool, and I don't have a clue who the best player in the world is. I don't know much about Tennis and I don't watch much of it, but I know Federer was the best in the world for a long time and now Nadal seems to be. I am not as into golf but I know Tiger was the best player in the world for a long time.

Who is the best pool player in the world? Is it Mika? Is it Ralf? Is it Appelton? Is it Orcullo? Is it Wu? Is it Lee Van? Is it Yang? Is it SVB? Is it Hohmann? Is it Pagulayan? Because I really don't know... people have their opinions, but atm this game is played on tables that ALL of them run out ever open table they get to, whoever gets the first open shot wins that rack, and that open shot is normally determined by the break.

I want to know who the best player in the world is. If this game gets played on 10-foot tables with relatively tight pockets then rest assured we are going to start to get answers to the above question, if we stay on 9-foot tables then in a decade from now noone will be any more knowledgable about the answer to the above question, there will still be 20 players in the world who are all about the exact same speed on a 9-foot table with 4.5 inch pockets.

I want to know who the best player in the world is, that is my answer. And if this game stays on 9-foot tables me and everyone else in the world will NEVER know the answer to that question.

 

[smashmouth]

agreed

enough with the coin toss matchups, time to see some seperation between the top guys

 

[Wags]

Occasionally, yes.

Running consecutive rack after rack is amazing, but I like seeing the best having to struggle like the rest of us, if only a little bit.

Thanks justa for being honest about that. I think those sentiments are inherent in human nature.

When Tiger missed that 3 foot putt today, it was a shock. He doesn't miss those. I wasn't rooting for him to miss but his miss added tons of drama in his charge for the win. He probably lost his chance for a win because of it.

When I'm watching the NBA, I marvel at the 3 pointers and get a bit disgusted with the dunks. It was fine when just a few could dunk, but now everyone can. It's a shot that, if you have the height, is almost a no-brainer. Yet, for some reason they don't raise the basket height. I imagine the reason for this is that it is still one of the most exciting shots in basketball, something a normal mortal can't do. I sometimes want them to miss a dunk, it's too easy of a point getter.

When Hatch hooked himself on the hill-hill rack in the Mosconi cup and got defeated, I think everyone was in shock. Pro players don't do this. He did. That match had tons of drama. It was set-up with short races and alternating break to produce such an outcome. Most matches were either going to be close or a blow-out.

When I watch a player put a 3 pack together and then miss and the incoming player puts a 4 pack back on him, that is character AND skill. I don't want to watch 3 or 4 inning play per rack unless a great safety game breaks out. I like to watch and play along with the players. I like watching how they think and what they have to do with the cue-ball for the next position. I like it when they have to do something difficult with the cue ball to have a chance for the next position. (Like a full stroke, extreme english stun shot to get a line to go the length of the table. Oh wait, we would never see that shot on a 10 footer.) The 10 footer with small pockets just takes away too many shots that are exciting. It would force too much safety play.

The advent of the jump cue allowed for a way to negate some of the luck. Now if a safety is played, players know that they have to take the jump shot away by freezing or getting very close to the impeding ball. Safety play got better. Not only that, the rail play for kicking also got better. I like seeing a high level of play. (sidenote: If Earl doesn't like the jump cue, then he just has to play a better safety shot) I'm pretty sure the powers that be aren't going to take away one of the most exciting (fanwise) shots in pool.

Until players NEVER get a chance to get to the table because of the shooter breaking and running out a set and it becomes like the dunk shot, that everyone can do it, the game is plenty hard enough at the pro level. If that barrier is broken with any consistency, I would consider changing my mind.

It was interesting to hear today that Phil Mickelson hired a coach to improve his game by 1/4 stroke a hole. For him, that amount was the difference between winning and losing. He is considered to have one of the best short games in golf and that is where he wanted to improve. Is today's pro game even close to that high level of play? Don't think so.

IMHO, tournaments are still won by the skill of that player, that week. Certainly players get a roll here and there but in most cases (99%) those rolls even out and skill wins.

 

[Wags]

Do you know what I really want?

I want to know who the best pool player in the world is. I have been a fan of this game for decades, I watch alot of pro pool, and I don't have a clue who the best player in the world is. I don't know much about Tennis and I don't watch much of it, but I know Federer was the best in the world for a long time and now Nadal seems to be. I am not as into golf but I know Tiger was the best player in the world for a long time.

Who is the best pool player in the world? Is it Mika? Is it Ralf? Is it Appelton? Is it Orcullo? Is it Wu? Is it Lee Van? Is it Yang? Is it SVB? Is it Hohmann? Is it Pagulayan? Because I really don't know... people have their opinions, but atm this game is played on tables that ALL of them run out ever open table they get to, whoever gets the first open shot wins that rack, and that open shot is normally determined by the break.

I want to know who the best player in the world is. If this game gets played on 10-foot tables with relatively tight pockets then rest assured we are going to start to get answers to the above question, if we stay on 9-foot tables then in a decade from now noone will be any more knowledgable about the answer to the above question, there will still be 20 players in the world who are all about the exact same speed on a 9-foot table with 4.5 inch pockets.

I want to know who the best player in the world is, that is my answer. And if this game stays on 9-foot tables me and everyone else in the world will NEVER know the answer to that question.

Thanks for the reply and I understand what you mean, kind of.

The problem with pool is that there are so many options in games, tables, equipment, rules, formats, etc. Yes, it is very hard to judge. I don't think that you will ever find a definitive answer.

If you are asking who is the best in any one discipline, say 9-ball on the 9 foot Diamond pro-cut, then we just have to look up results of the current players (think you said 20) going back X number of years and find out the best record on that equipment. Probably SVB. I don't think that he would agree that his championships were because of luck.

Every equipment change causes a different skill set to be employed. It creates different shot percentages.

I guess my question to you would be, "What skill set do you think makes the best player in the world playing 9-ball and on what equipment?"

Some examples would be:
shot making (different tables allow for different shots to be made)
safety play
kicking
two way shots
cue ball control
breaking
position play
12 foot
10 foot
9 foot
8 foot
7 foot
simonis
championship
worsted
brunswick
diamond
gandy
kim steele
valley
alternating break
winner breaks
loser breaks
rack your own
magic rack
sardo rack
race to 11
race to 100
race to 1
etc. etc. etc.

Now, if we get into the many various games that are played, it really becomes complicated. We can probably narrow it down by discipline and figure the best. To find an overall, wow.

Who the best is all depends on the track record. Right now, Earl is the best on that table playing 10 ball, today. We know that.

 

[hang-the-9]

Is the point of a 10ft table to just test player's skill or to bring in more money/viewers into the sport? Or to have the players make more money?

Cause a larger table and even just tight pockets will only do the first.

There are maybe a few tens of thousand people that follow pool constantly, 99% of the world can't even identify a 7' table vs a 9' table standing right in front of the thing and shooting. For those 99%, what matters is that there is a laser light show with smoke and girls in bikinis running around the arena not what table the pros are playing on.

If a few dozen players and a few thousand fans can run the whole industry, yay for 10' footers! If not, it's a waste to make any move to them outside of some challenge matches.

 

[jalapus logan]

Good points all around here. But I wonder if it would not be more economical to just change the pro game instead of the size of the table, which would possibly require factories to retool, pool rooms to buy new tables, if they even have the space for a larger table at all.

How about just migrating to 15 ball rotation and then be done with it. Surely that is a game of skill, no?

 

[BrokeStroke]

Im curious to know how many people would be on the barbox bandwagon if these kinds of matches were held on them??? Would everyone be in such a hurry to throw out the 9s and say "barbox pool is the ONLY way to go if Earl wanted a match game on one?
It seems the case with the 10 footers. So these guys played a match game on a 10 footer....so what??? If youd spend a year or so on a 10 footer, then it would start to get easier(remember how hard you first thought a 9-footer was).
A 10 foot table is not going to be the thing that saves pool. Pool will always be around, but its going to have to stay off the mainstream. Regardless of whether people are shooting on 7 footers or 10, be happy there are still people playing and trying to promote the game.

 

[ccshrimper]

I wonder how much a 5x10 would change one pocket. I'd think it would hurt power one pocket players like Frost and help the movers like Efren. I'd love to see a big money match like that.

I'd love to see the 10' table being used for something like the BCA invitational where only 64 players can play but for the US Open, it would drag it out too long with 256 players. I'd also love to see some more big money matches on it. It really takes a bigger, more precise stroke to play well on the 10' table.

 

[Celtic]

If you are asking who is the best in any one discipline, say 9-ball on the 9 foot Diamond pro-cut, then we just have to look up results of the current players (think you said 20) going back X number of years and find out the best record on that equipment. Probably SVB. I don't think that he would agree that his championships were because of luck.

And that is my point, you think it is SVB why? Because he won more championships then Mika? More major events then Thorsten in that period? Beat more guys in challenge matches, except Pagulayan?

Your opinion might be that SVB is the best player in the world and you might also be correct for that matter but there is absolutely nothing that has taken place in the sport that is substantial evidence of him being better then the other 19 top players in the world.

This game needs to be played on tables that require more skill if we are ever going to see the cream rise to the top and the most skilled player being able to break away from the field. ATM is CANNOT happen and that is seriously lame and terrible for a sport.

 

[smashmouth]

why can't the naysayers just admit at the very least there is nothing to lose and it's worth a shot?

the idea that anything at this stage can actually hurt the game is laughable

I can't even remember the last time a live pool match was on tv, the game is near extinction

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

And that is my point, you think it is SVB why? Because he won more championships then Mika? More major events then Thorsten in that period? Beat more guys in challenge matches, except Pagulayan?

Your opinion might be that SVB is the best player in the world and you might also be correct for that matter but there is absolutely nothing that has taken place in the sport that is substantial evidence of him being better then the other 19 top players in the world.

This game needs to be played on tables that require more skill if we are ever going to see the cream rise to the top and the most skilled player being able to break away from the field. ATM is CANNOT happen and that is seriously lame and terrible for a sport.

I'm not sure that the table size will accomplish that. It is more likely that the reality is there are a number of top level players that are close in speed and a 10' table won't change that. From week to week the guy playing the best will win that week. I don't think the only thing preventing one guy from becoming the Tiger Woods of pool is the 9' table. There just isn't one player that is better than the rest and we just don't know it because of the table size.

 

[Williebetmore]

And how does that change on a 10 footer?

Still have to break on the 10 footer, still have a lucky layout, still have skid. I don't understand what you are saying.

Sounds to me like luck is there all the time if that's the definition of luck.

Wags,
Play a game or two (it won't take three) on such a table and you will see what I mean. The layouts/break/skids are still there as you correctly point out...BUT every game will require so much more skill at positioning and pocketing that those factors FAR outweigh the luck factors.

Even a layout that would be "easy" on the 9 footer will require a more than modest effort to complete successfully on the 10 footer. The shots Shane was banging into the rail on the 10 footer would have been duck soup on the 9 footer - he would have easily run out most of those layouts on a 9 footer.

Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Williebetmore]

I'm not sure that the table size will accomplish that. It is more likely that the reality is there are a number of top level players that are close in speed and a 10' table won't change that. From week to week the guy playing the best will win that week. I don't think the only thing preventing one guy from becoming the Tiger Woods of pool is the 9' table. There just isn't one player that is better than the rest and we just don't know it because of the table size.

DPP,
I think that there are probably only a very few players that would ever win tournaments on the bigger table. I wish we could see who is right; it would be cool.

 

[12ozCurl]

I would love to play on heated 10x5 tables. Earl has a point, heating the table produces a more even roll. While that would be wonderful...they said the strickland vs boening table cost 11k. I can't see most rooms affording that

 

[smashmouth]

brand new Olhausen 10 footers sell for half that

 

[Wags]

Wags,
Play a game or two (it won't take three) on such a table and you will see what I mean. The layouts/break/skids are still there as you correctly point out...BUT every game will require so much more skill at positioning and pocketing that those factors FAR outweigh the luck factors.

Even a layout that would be "easy" on the 9 footer will require a more than modest effort to complete successfully on the 10 footer. The shots Shane was banging into the rail on the 10 footer would have been duck soup on the 9 footer - he would have easily run out most of those layouts on a 9 footer.

Try it, you'll like it.

Thanks Willie, been there done that. In younger days I used to play 9-ball on an American cut snooker table with 2.25 in balls. I really do know what the ten foot advocates are saying. I also know that it changes the way the game is played.

As I have stated earlier, I have no problem with challenge matches on whatever table, game, rules, etc.

As for having a pro tour on such, I prefer to be realistic. Equipment availability, space requirements, tournament participation and audience gate are just a few of the problems that will prohibit such a move. Even if the equipment and space was available, no promoter is going to risk their money to put on a pro event/tour. Pro pool, as Americans know it, is not going to move forward by changing to 10 ball on a 10 foot table. It may be an interesting side show and that is where it should be left, as a side show.

smashmouth...why can't the naysayers just admit at the very least there is nothing to lose and it's worth a shot?

the idea that anything at this stage can actually hurt the game is laughable

I can't even remember the last time a live pool match was on tv, the game is near extinction

Actually, the pro game in this country is nearing extinction. The amateur events on the bar box are very alive and well. Why is that?

Smash, if you truly feel it's worth a shot, take it. If there is nothing to lose, take a chance. I would challenge everyone that wants the pros on a 10 foot tour to form a conglomerate, pool your money, hire the best promoter/event planner you can and have a go at it. How can it go wrong? The conglomerate would be on the ground floor.

As I said, I prefer to be realistic.

Celtic...This game needs to be played on tables that require more skill if we are ever going to see the cream rise to the top and the most skilled player being able to break away from the field. ATM is CANNOT happen and that is seriously lame and terrible for a sport.

So by using, what i think is your definition of skill, snooker players must have the most skill of any of the cue sports. They would probably be happy to take challenge matches against anyone in the world playing 10 ball on their equipment.

 

[risky biz]

I am watching the match atm and one thing stands out, this table looks like a little kiddie table for these two players. It looks like a skid is going to be the determining shot for the match, not skill but a bit of chalk on a ball.

On that 5x10 that Earl played Shane on this straight pool game would be WAY harder and it is unlikely a person going to run the set out in a single inning. That 5x10 match was thrilling to watch, every shot was an adventure and a threat to be missed, this table is so easy the players look like they are going through the motions and as a pool fanatic I will tell you, it is WAY more boring to watch pro's torture an easy table like this instead of pulling out their maximum skills and needing every bit of them to perform on that 5x10.

After watching pool as it was meant to be played and now watching a shift back to a 4 1/2 x 9 I gotta say, we cannot get the pro's off these 9 footers fast enough for the betterment of the sport.

Is it correct that the old 5 x 10's had smaller pockets and were played with larger balls? Anyone have information on pocket and ball dimensions from those days? I'm going to try to research this myself but maybe someone already knows.