You're right about the bumper pool table.
Mike Davis came on here and said top pros have been asking for 10' tables for awhile now. Mike likes them, Earl, and don't forget I'm from NY and I tend to stretch things a bit...just a bit.
. Johnnyt
OK TAR, Time For A 10' Table
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
You're right about the bumper pool table.
Mike Davis came on here and said top pros have been asking for 10' tables for awhile now. Mike likes them, Earl, and don't forget I'm from NY and I tend to stretch things a bit...just a bit.
. Johnnyt
I've always been a goldcrown guy...
I always loved a tight Ernesto Gold Crown best.....Until.....
I played on the blue label diamond ten footer from Tunica that is now in Ohio.
That is now my favorite table.
My second favorite is a tight Ernesto Gold Crown...
Third is a tie between the 4" pocketed Diamond at the Golden Fleece and a blue label nine foot diamond. Now if someone were to make a blue label with 4" pockets, that would be a tie with the pro cut diamond ten footer blue label.
I think higher level events should be on either a tight 9' or a ten footer.
The difference on easier equipment between low to high level pro is too small IMO.
Jaden
I always loved a tight Ernesto Gold Crown best.....Until.....
I played on the blue label diamond ten footer from Tunica that is now in Ohio.
That is now my favorite table.
My second favorite is a tight Ernesto Gold Crown...
Third is a tie between the 4" pocketed Diamond at the Golden Fleece and a blue label nine foot diamond. Now if someone were to make a blue label with 4" pockets, that would be a tie with the pro cut diamond ten footer blue label.
I think higher level events should be on either a tight 9' or a ten footer.
The difference on easier equipment between low to high level pro is too small IMO.
Jaden
Ten foot tables apparently have a niche, but that's about it. I watched it in person at the DCC again this year. Its fine, but I did not enjoy it anymore and than the main events. In fact, I guess I actually like the nine foot tables more, but that's just my opinion. I understand why some like the ten footers, or 4"pockets, but I don't see much point personally.
I like to see a diverse offering of pool games and that interests me more than switching up the playing surface IMO. So toward that end, I would prefer a table that is reasonable across games. A nine foot diamond with the normal pro cut pockets fits that bill nicely. In fact, even that may prove too tight for games like 14.1.
But sure, have some events on ten footers. There are many roads to Dublin.
I like to see a diverse offering of pool games and that interests me more than switching up the playing surface IMO. So toward that end, I would prefer a table that is reasonable across games. A nine foot diamond with the normal pro cut pockets fits that bill nicely. In fact, even that may prove too tight for games like 14.1.
But sure, have some events on ten footers. There are many roads to Dublin.
Last edited:
All it does is separate the elite.
The elite will still play all games good on tougher equipment.
All it does is truly separate the elite from the rest.
Jaden
The elite will still play all games good on tougher equipment.
All it does is truly separate the elite from the rest.
Jaden
I'm not sure that this is true, as the cream seems to rise to the top in most events that I tune in to.
Why not just play snooker? That seems to be what some are driving at anyway.
Or maybe English blackball on a nine footer?
Aww hell, potting balls is over rated anyway. Three cushion is where its at. There, I said it. Three cushion should be the undisputed pro game. And it should be on a ten by twenty too.
I may have misspoke...
It also separates the elite from the elite.
Let's be honest, on relatively easy conditions, the world class players are a toss up against each other on any day.
By toughening the conditions, it really allows the best to shine through.
Jaden
It also separates the elite from the elite.
Let's be honest, on relatively easy conditions, the world class players are a toss up against each other on any day.
By toughening the conditions, it really allows the best to shine through.
Jaden
Nah, great players playing each other allows greatness to shine through. Look at past DCC all around winners. Not many of them and plenty of repeat winners. All of those contests were played on nine foot diamonds.
Most of the rest of the players WERE amatuers and that table did nothing but expose that fact. That table showed clearly who the only player in America is who puts a true professional level of effort into this sport.
Professional level equipment on sny sport should expose people who are not true professionals, and that table did.
I don't know who are professionals or not. But I did see Souquet and Shaw miss so many balls that shocking.
That was a great table. bouncy pocket facings, short long rails, extra long short rails, a mix of hard rubber and bouncy rubber for the pocket facings, 10,000kW gas fired heater with high speed blower underneath, extension cords strung everywhere and Earls magnifiying glass and 1970's stereo-phonic head phones to make Shane's advantage of being deaf a non-factor.
Stay classy Earl...
Stay classy Earl...
If they're missing that much, which they weren't...
If they're inordinately missing, then they aren't as good and it's good to separate them.
They weren't, I swear people have such a bloated opinion of the better players.
They all miss. They all miss regularly. Most people only see them when they're at their best. Every single match that was played in the bigfoot tourney was shown, so you get to see the players when not at their best.
Did the ten foot make them miss more than on a ninefoot, God I hope so. It's a much more difficult table to play on, was it substantially more, not really.
I don't get why people even WANT to see constant run outs. It just doesn't make sense.
You want to see mickelson, tiger and another 10 golf pros get birdies on EVERY hole???
You want to see a better player lose because there's a good chance of a lesser player running 6 racks???
In races to 9 or eleven, the players SHOULDN'T be able to regularly run 6 racks, not that they do, again going back to an over blown sense of how good even the best players are.
BNR's are less than 40% on the easiest conditions. Bar boxes not withstanding.
a run of more than 3 racks to get back into a losing match should happen about as often as an eagle in golf. A run of 5+ racks should happen about as much as a double eagle in golf.
Those should be the exception, not the rule.
Jaden
If they're inordinately missing, then they aren't as good and it's good to separate them.
They weren't, I swear people have such a bloated opinion of the better players.
They all miss. They all miss regularly. Most people only see them when they're at their best. Every single match that was played in the bigfoot tourney was shown, so you get to see the players when not at their best.
Did the ten foot make them miss more than on a ninefoot, God I hope so. It's a much more difficult table to play on, was it substantially more, not really.
I don't get why people even WANT to see constant run outs. It just doesn't make sense.
You want to see mickelson, tiger and another 10 golf pros get birdies on EVERY hole???
You want to see a better player lose because there's a good chance of a lesser player running 6 racks???
In races to 9 or eleven, the players SHOULDN'T be able to regularly run 6 racks, not that they do, again going back to an over blown sense of how good even the best players are.
BNR's are less than 40% on the easiest conditions. Bar boxes not withstanding.
a run of more than 3 racks to get back into a losing match should happen about as often as an eagle in golf. A run of 5+ racks should happen about as much as a double eagle in golf.
Those should be the exception, not the rule.
Jaden
I have a 10 ft gold crown 1 I will donate to them.
One of the highlights of the touney so far was when kiamco ran four in a row in nineball today. I have been to the DCC now religiously for seven years or so. I find the big names in pool And I sweat their matches. I have never seen a six pack run in Person by any human, period. Shane included. Notable packages happen with such infrequency that it is special and creates a buzz when it does occur.
Azb'er atlarge has been nice enough to compile stats for several years now for pros in top tourneys. The b & r % does not indicate to me that the pros, even top pros to include svb run out with such frequency that I think that the equipment is too easy. If I recall correctly, for nine ball, they break and run about 22% or so on average. Svb had a tar b & r % approaching 40 recently. That is amazing because it is exceedingly rare.
I just don't understand why folks think that the game is broken. When was the last ten pack in nine or ten ball that you have heard of? What about eight ball? Yeah, svb and Dennis ran so many racks that it was sick. In fact, it was so sick I got excited about the game and started playing and practicing. It revs people up to see the game played like that.
If you want to see something else, say, "moving and squeezing", just use one pocket. When I last checked, no one has bested mosoni's high run or improved on earls 10 pack in nine ball at cj's tourney that I am aware of. If they did, it would create some buzz and excitement.
If the industry would listen to what pros supposedly want to play on, then everyone involved would be broke. Jmo of course.
Cheers and best of rolls,
JL
Last edited:
I agree...
I understand and agree, as I said, the pro's abilities are vastly overrated by the general public.
So when people say they shouldn't play on tougher equipment because they can't run big packages, that's just not true, the best players will still run big packages, Shane ran 5 out of 11 racks in the finals. That's awesome.
The best I've done is a 6 pack on a tight nine foot.
Tight tables haven't affected my game, that's probably why I like them so much. My only problem is mental and has to do with lack of focus, so I prefer to play on big and super tight tables.
So, what I'm saying is that based on the performance of those playing in the big foot challenge, to say that big packages aren't likely is a misstatement I think.
They would happen, but only by the best players. Shane being one of them.
I would love to see more tourneys and match ups on the 10 foot diamonds. I think the level of play will rise to the challenge.
You see snooker players on 6x12s running out, so why not American pool on 5x10s.
Like I said earlier, my current favorite table to play on is the blue label ten foot diamond. I had no problem running out on the one in the back room in Ohio when I was there.
The rails bounce perfect. I would love to try some one hole on it.
I also got to play on some blue label nine footers while in New Mexico. While easier than the ten foot, they played amazingly.
Maybe TAR shouldn't get a ten foot. If people think TAR is the Shane show now, imagine what it would be with a ten foot diamond.
Me, I don't care if Shane plays in EVERY TAR match, he's my current favorite player aside from myself right now in pool.
I grew up with Efren as my idol, so I still route for him when he plays,especially considering my friend was his backer in the big foot challenge, but Shane is my current favorite player.
Jaden
I understand and agree, as I said, the pro's abilities are vastly overrated by the general public.
So when people say they shouldn't play on tougher equipment because they can't run big packages, that's just not true, the best players will still run big packages, Shane ran 5 out of 11 racks in the finals. That's awesome.
The best I've done is a 6 pack on a tight nine foot.
Tight tables haven't affected my game, that's probably why I like them so much. My only problem is mental and has to do with lack of focus, so I prefer to play on big and super tight tables.
So, what I'm saying is that based on the performance of those playing in the big foot challenge, to say that big packages aren't likely is a misstatement I think.
They would happen, but only by the best players. Shane being one of them.
I would love to see more tourneys and match ups on the 10 foot diamonds. I think the level of play will rise to the challenge.
You see snooker players on 6x12s running out, so why not American pool on 5x10s.
Like I said earlier, my current favorite table to play on is the blue label ten foot diamond. I had no problem running out on the one in the back room in Ohio when I was there.
The rails bounce perfect. I would love to try some one hole on it.
I also got to play on some blue label nine footers while in New Mexico. While easier than the ten foot, they played amazingly.
Maybe TAR shouldn't get a ten foot. If people think TAR is the Shane show now, imagine what it would be with a ten foot diamond.
Me, I don't care if Shane plays in EVERY TAR match, he's my current favorite player aside from myself right now in pool.
I grew up with Efren as my idol, so I still route for him when he plays,especially considering my friend was his backer in the big foot challenge, but Shane is my current favorite player.
Jaden
I hear ya. Even I can run put a coupla runouts together every now and then. But when you say tight tables haven't affected your game, which game are you referring to? Rotation based games, onepocket, 14.1? I guess that in my view if 9 or 10 ball were the only games out there, then I suppose that the argument for tighter pockets or larger tables would have some more merit. But contrary to popular opinion, those are not the only games. Pool is a collection of challenging games each with their own skill set. That is what interests me most. And tighter pockets and/or larger tables will absolutely hurt games like banks and 14.1, both of which need to be played and watched more, imo. The banks in particular is a very exciting game imo, more so than the rotation based games to me. Tighter pockets or larger tables hurts this game, possibly to the point of extinction. 14.1 is already on the ropes as it is. Ask John Schmidt how hard it is to run hundreds on the 9' diamond pro. Pretty hard, and no one is a threat to run 500 it would seem.
Anyway, to bring this back to this thread topic, 10 foot tables have a niche to fill evidently, but it seems for rotation based games.
You guys all saw the accu-stats TPA stats during the stream right?
What they showed is that everyone had more errors on the 10 foot.
Even Shane. He averaged about one error per rack.
You didn't see new tactics. You didn't see bushels of safety play.
You didn't see new controlled kicks or unusual pushouts.
You saw the exact same shit you saw on a 9 footer,
they just failed to execute it more often.
I am absolutely BAFFLED why anyone thinks that makes for better,
more interesting, more entertaining matches. Or even more fair matches.
It doesn't absolutely nothing for me, to see pros shoot about 10% worse than usual.
What they showed is that everyone had more errors on the 10 foot.
Even Shane. He averaged about one error per rack.
You didn't see new tactics. You didn't see bushels of safety play.
You didn't see new controlled kicks or unusual pushouts.
You saw the exact same shit you saw on a 9 footer,
they just failed to execute it more often.
I am absolutely BAFFLED why anyone thinks that makes for better,
more interesting, more entertaining matches. Or even more fair matches.
It doesn't absolutely nothing for me, to see pros shoot about 10% worse than usual.
The game and its championships were played on a 10' table for years before they (Brunswick) wanted more tables to fit in poolrooms and homes, so they made the 9' table and promoted the hell out of it. A 10' table is a lot harder for rotation games than a 9'.
I get a kick out of some on here that say the 7' BB is a toy and pure players that say the 9' is the table in pool history when it is the 10' that was and is the pure championship table, and of coarse no jump cues. Over the years made for TV pool and table companies and such have made the game a lot easier for everyone, and it hasn't brought more regular players to the rooms as promised. Johnnyt
PS: By the way the coming of the BB had a big impact on pool, just like the two movies did. Johnnyt
I get a kick out of some on here that say the 7' BB is a toy and pure players that say the 9' is the table in pool history when it is the 10' that was and is the pure championship table, and of coarse no jump cues. Over the years made for TV pool and table companies and such have made the game a lot easier for everyone, and it hasn't brought more regular players to the rooms as promised. Johnnyt
PS: By the way the coming of the BB had a big impact on pool, just like the two movies did. Johnnyt
Last edited:
thanks
I had no stats but that is exactly what I have been saying. Same thing I saw at the derby. Busty and Shane were missing uncharacteristic balls, safes, and position. Along with the other guys as well.
I had no stats but that is exactly what I have been saying. Same thing I saw at the derby. Busty and Shane were missing uncharacteristic balls, safes, and position. Along with the other guys as well.