Quantifing runs

robertod

robertod

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hello to all,

First let me start by saying I am just a good beginner player with my high run of maybe 23 -27, ( just not sure, it was a while ago). But I love the game, have my own table, purchased a cue here on AZ and LOVE visiting this site for info and entertainment. 14.1 was the game I grew up playing and it still has a special attraction for me.

Now with that out the way, here is my point. Should runs be quantified? In other words should the runs be accompanied by table size, condition, and (really important IMO) pocket size. Is a 100 ball run on a 8.5 ft table with 5 inch pockets really better than a 50 ball run on a 9ft. w/ 4.5 inch pockets. Shooting a low golf score on a municipal golf course would be great but not be the same as shooting that low score a US Open caliber course.

I am not saying I know the answer to this, but would love to hear the discussion. I know there are very knowledgeable players here and that's why I visit here and would love to hear the different opinions and insights.

Excuse me if this has been discussed already in some other posts.

Looking forward to reading the debate.
 
Not much of a debate in my opinion. I think that a run of 50 on tight pockets is much more difficult vs. 100 on buckets . I consider a run that I had of 71 on a brutal Gold Crown to be my crowning achievement, deep shelf, tight pockets, and shim angle made it one hell of a trick table. Now I hit 70's quite often on a demanding Diamond.

A few months ago I played at a friends pool hall that had gold crowns, but the pockets were probably 5 inches. Set up a break shot and ran 82 out the gate.

To sum up....tighter more demanding pockets do NOT allow you to get away with anything. You really have to play perfect position if you want a chance at running any numbers. Now that said, if you are new to the game, I think you should learn on a easier table. Your confidence will grow by being able to accomplish runs. As you become more proficient, then move to a tighter table.

my 2 cents.
 
Salamander said:
Not much of a debate in my opinion. I think that a run of 50 on tight pockets is much more difficult vs. 100 on buckets . I consider a run that I had of 71 on a brutal Gold Crown to be my crowning achievement, deep shelf, tight pockets, and shim angle made it one hell of a trick table. Now I hit 70's quite often on a demanding Diamond.

A few months ago I played at a friends pool hall that had gold crowns, but the pockets were probably 5 inches. Set up a break shot and ran 82 out the gate.

To sum up....tighter more demanding pockets do NOT allow you to get away with anything. You really have to play perfect position if you want a chance at running any numbers. Now that said, if you are new to the game, I think you should learn on a easier table. Your confidence will grow by being able to accomplish runs. As you become more proficient, then move to a tighter table.

my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!!
 
Another Opinion

I have played on a few tables that were so tightly shimmed, it was ridiculous. Maybe, I am "Old School" but I believe the best three tables that I have ever played on are:
The Centennial, The Anniversary, and Gold Crown I. All come out of the factory with forgiven pockets. To me any table that has shimmed pockets, I consider to be altered equipment.
I big draw back to playing on tight pockets is the fact that you can not play position by hitting different areas of the pocket, also a player can not utilize the rails to slightly skim off the long rail in order to pocket a ball. These aspects of the game are taken away from a player.
A newer player who learns to play on a tight shimmed table will have nothing but trouble and will never learn how to properly cheat pockets to move their cue ball on certain shots.
I do believe that I read a post one time that John Schmidt also did not care for shimmed pockets and believed it was not a good thing for players.
OK, don't throw rocks at me for this. It's just my opinion. If 80% of you like shimmed pockets, I say.... Great for you but better you then I. When I am asked by other players on this subject, this is what I always tell them. Again, I do not want basket ball hoops as pockets but what ever the measurement that Brunswick made on their tables all threw their history and what a great history that company has. That is the size, I want on my table.
 
Last edited:
straightman: agreed....cheating the pockets is a huge part of 14.1 and why the game is just no fun on tight pockets. but to answer robertod's question; i do think that there should be some standards for major tournaments and the record books. in this regard, like you, i think a factory 9' crown ( i like the GCIII) is perfect. the folks at brunswick no doubt had straight pool in mind when designing this table as evidenced by the built in counters.

also a played can not utilize the rails to slightly skim off the long rail in order to pocket a ball.
Click to expand...
yes... often on those low-angle long shots i will err to the cushion side.
 
Last edited:
salamander: i guess the debate is; what constitutes a "tight pocket"? and it's not just the pockets, it's the depth of the slate, the responsiveness of the cushions and their height which effects how the balls roll. if this weren't confusing enough, some pockets will be easier than others if the cushions aren't perfectly square with regard to the slate. oh, and i forgot to mention the cloth.... OH, and polished vs non-polished balls.

all of these variables and more are probably why standards -beyond a table having to be half as wide as it is long- have never been set.
 
Last edited:
Great topic, and a very important one for me. I actually used the rating system that is linked in my signature from THIS site related to how hard a table is.

Right or wrong, my tables are SIGNIFICANTLY harder than GCs or the ones that I use at pool halls. My EASY table is a 9' Diamond Pro. And it is WAY more difficult than the ones at pool halls.

I am just learning 14.1, and I find it VERY frustrating to have a ball rattle that would have gone in on virtually any other table. My tables are tight, and that was intentional for 8 and 9-ball practice. It SUCKS for getting good runs as many SURE thing shots, never fall, they rattle and hang.

I have been thinking of having the pockets loosened up while I am learning 14.1. I can actually run more balls easier on my Diamond Pro than I can on my Brunswick Madison.

Here is a LINK to the article on AZB that I used to rank my tables.
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger2.php

Frustrating is all I can say.
 
sausage said:
salamander: i guess the debate is; what constitutes a "tight pocket"? and it's not just the pockets, it's the depth of the slate, the responsiveness of the cushions and their height which effects how the balls roll. if this weren't confusing enough, some pockets will be easier than others if the cushions aren't perfectly square with regard to the slate. oh, and i forgot to mention the cloth.... OH, and polished vs non-polished balls.

all of these variables and more are probably why standards -beyond a table having to be half as wide as it is long- have never been set.
Click to expand...

True. All the variables make it difficult to have a "standard" by which to play. Since the majority of tournaments now seem to be played on Diamond pros, that is probably the best "standard" that we have nowadays. It's a tough table, but still somewhat forgiving. I certainly find that running 100 on a diamond pro to be no easy feat.

For the most part, I find them to play very much the same wherever I go.
 
pocket size and 14.1

Well, about pocket size, I started this thread up on the main forum that has lots of differing opinions: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=198717

My growing sentiment is that 14.1 on a Diamond pro table is rather challenging indeed. I am new to the game and I kind of wish that I had a gold crown near by to practice and learn the game on. Also, just ask John Schmidt if he thinks that his 290 ball run on film on the Diamond pro has any special significance. Stan Shuffet once told me that running 30 on a Diamond pro table is like running 50 on a Gold Crown. I can tell you for certain that I do get frustrated playing 14.1 on my Diamond at home. I do not feel frustrated playing 9/10 ball or onepocket on the same table. What I am beginning to sense is that 14.1 is a special game that may need to be played on more "forgiving" equipment. Of course, that is the opinion of this humble novice.
 
jalapus logan said:
What I am beginning to sense is that 14.1 is a special game that may need to be played on more "forgiving" equipment. Of course, that is the opinion of this humble novice.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this if you are playing alone and trying for high runs. It allows you to get in a rhythm and gain confidence. However, in tournament play with professionals, it ain't no fun having a guy run 150 and out on you. In this instance, I think that a more demanding table would be appropriate. I think there must be a happy medium which will allow the opposing player a chance, but without it turning into "4 and safe" affair.
 
Personally, I think all tables should conform to the WPBA specifications. Here are the most significant parts:

Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
Side Pocket Mouth: between 5 [12.7 cm] and 5.125 inches [13.0175 cm]
Corner Pocket Shelf: between 1 [2.54 cm] and 2 ¼ inches [5.715 cm]
Side Pocket Shelf: between 0 and .375 inches [.9525 cm]
Horizontal Pocket Cut Angle: The angle must be the same on both sides of a pocket entrance. The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the corner pocket entrance must be 142 degrees (+1). The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the side pocket entrance must be 104 degrees (+1).

Of those, shelf depth can be the real killer. This is emphasized by its use as a divisor in the "pocket toughness" formula "(mouth * throat) / shelf".

Note that the WPBA specification does not give a throat width measurement. It isn't needed since it's determined by the pocket cut angle and shelf width. I suspect the pocket toughness formula uses throat width since it's easier to measure than the pocket cut angle and gives a formula that's easier to use, also
 
I agree that they should conform to those standards. However, there is quite a range in difficulty and ease of pocketing balls in those numbers listed above for the table specs.

Even if all numbers were identical on all tables for opening, throat, and shelf, you would still have a difference in table difficulty based on table size. Surely a 9 foot table is more difficult to run a 100 balls than a 6 foot table with the identical pocket measurements.

Even the "pocket toughness" formula "(mouth * throat) / shelf" isn't allowing for table length.

And if we were taking all known and easy to measure factors into account, what about Simonis 760 vs 860 vs Championship vs. cheap felt? Those all would have a known rolling resistance that could be a "rating" on the cloth.

Clearly, you'd still have new cloth vs old cloth, clean cloth vs. dirty cloth. Add humidity and wear to the mix, and every table is different.

It seems to me that the measurement should include the pocket difficulty formula, and at minimum the known factors such as table size and cloth type. All other factors would be subjective and very difficult to have "fairly" evaluated ratings.

I think that the big thing here is that running balls on an "easy bucket" short table is FAR easier than running balls on a long "tight, unforgiving" table.

Personally, I prefer tighter tables for 8, 9 and 10-ball. However, for Straight Pool, I prefer a more forgiving table so that you can string runs together.
 
Wink said:
Great topic, and a very important one for me. I actually used the rating system that is linked in my signature from THIS site related to how hard a table is.

Right or wrong, my tables are SIGNIFICANTLY harder than GCs or the ones that I use at pool halls. My EASY table is a 9' Diamond Pro. And it is WAY more difficult than the ones at pool halls.

I am just learning 14.1, and I find it VERY frustrating to have a ball rattle that would have gone in on virtually any other table. My tables are tight, and that was intentional for 8 and 9-ball practice. It SUCKS for getting good runs as many SURE thing shots, never fall, they rattle and hang.

I have been thinking of having the pockets loosened up while I am learning 14.1. I can actually run more balls easier on my Diamond Pro than I can on my Brunswick Madison.

Here is a LINK to the article on AZB that I used to rank my tables.
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger2.php

Frustrating is all I can say.
Click to expand...

I don't know that that formula will hold up for small pockets. With 4" pockets how deep would the shelf be on a Diamond Pro? My table without the deep shelf with 4" openings and nearly parallel facings is far more difficult to play on than a standard Diamond Pro, but will probably rate easier using this formula due to the shelf nearly disappearing as the rails are extended into the pocket to make the opening smaller.
 
I have a very short shelf on my Brunswick Madison and it rates harder (and plays FAR harder) than my 9' Diamond Pro which has deep shelves fwiw.
 
Great topic

Funny. I thought about starting a thread on the exact same topic about a week ago.

Another pocket difficulty rating system is offered by the author Jack H. Koehler in chapter two of his book, "Upscale Nine-ball." His system also depends on throat angle, pocket width and shelf depth. A higher rating implies a more difficult table.

I enjoyed the technical aspect of his writing and immediately measured my pockets and was surprised to find inconsistencies in my table. My head corner pockets measured around 12 and my foot corner pockets measured around 13.

I too, as others mentioned, feel that there is more to rating the difficulty of a table than simply rating pocket difficulty. The 14.1 league in which I play has considerably easier pockets than mine, in terms of throat angle, pocket width and shelf depth, but has such springy cushions, similar or moreso than a Diamond, that catching the point just by a hair will reject the ball.

Also, I think the speed of the cloth plays a significant role especially if I'm trying to play three-rail shape on a slow table and I have to swing wildly to get the distance I need. I give up too much accuracy when having to bang balls.
 
Salamander said:
True. All the variables make it difficult to have a "standard" by which to play. Since the majority of tournaments now seem to be played on Diamond pros, that is probably the best "standard" that we have nowadays. It's a tough table, but still somewhat forgiving. I certainly find that running 100 on a diamond pro to be no easy feat.

For the most part, I find them to play very much the same wherever I go.
Click to expand...
Diamond tables should play the same-they are all relatively new.Well in comparison to GC1,2,3,4 . Tables are sold and and set up by a select few.
They are good tables,they do play differant.
 
Robertod said:

Hello to all,

First let me start by saying I am just a good beginner player with my high run of maybe 23 -27, ( just not sure, it was a while ago). But I love the game, have my own table, purchased a cue here on AZ and LOVE visiting this site for info and entertainment. 14.1 was the game I grew up playing and it still has a special attraction for me.

Now with that out the way, here is my point. Should runs be quantified? In other words should the runs be accompanied by table size, condition, and (really important IMO) pocket size. Is a 100 ball run on a 8.5 ft table with 5 inch pockets really better than a 50 ball run on a 9ft. w/ 4.5 inch pockets. Shooting a low golf score on a municipal golf course would be great but not be the same as shooting that low score a US Open caliber course.

I am not saying I know the answer to this, but would love to hear the discussion. I know there are very knowledgeable players here and that's why I visit here and would love to hear the different opinions and insights.

Excuse me if this has been discussed already in some other posts.

Looking forward to reading the debate.

Me: I guess the answer depends on what your motive is for playing. Making comparisons based on table criteria may be missing the point.

Try to be as agnostic as possible. The more different table exposures you experience the more well-rounded a player you may become.
 
I dont believe in Quantifying Runs !!!

Yes, the smaller table means more congestion. that being said, the table is smaller hence some shots are closer to the pockets or the CB is closer to all shots. I think its a wash !

the bottom line to me is that: on any size table is that how long can you maintain focus ?


-Steve
 
In baseball, should a pitcher who strikes out a .220 hitter get less credit than one who strikes out a .300 hitter? No, a strikeout is a strikeout.

In football, should a quarterback that completes a 20-yard pass to a fast receiver get less credit than if he'd thrown it to a slow receiver? No, a completion is a completion.

In basketball, statistically speaking, no distinction is made between a ten foot shot made and a fifteen foot shot made. It's just a basket.

Statistical analysis of performance in virtually every sport is an inexact science, but fans in all sports prefer that such analysis be homogenized to the greatest extent possible to allow for comparison of all players. Fans understand that winning is the only real bottom line. Ultimately, what we care about is who is able to beat everyone else in their own sphere of competition. Pool should be no different.

FYI, Mike Sigel, in a chat I had with him during the recently completed 14.1 event in New Jersey, suggested that 14.1 is a better test of a champion on looser equipment than on tight equipment. Mike suggested that the prospect of a very long trip to the chair made him feel much more pressure at the table when the pockets were more generous.

Finally, this does not mean that you should not take greater pride in a run performed on very difficult equipment than on easy equipment, but, ultimately, you will be better off if, over time, you rate your performance against your opponents.
 
sjm said:
In baseball, should a pitcher who strikes out a .220 hitter get less credit than one who strikes out a .300 hitter? No, a strikeout is a strikeout.

In football, should a quarterback that completes a 20-yard pass to a fast receiver get less credit than if he'd thrown it to a slow receiver? No, a completion is a completion.

In basketball, statistically speaking, no distinction is made between a ten foot shot made and a fifteen foot shot made. It's just a basket.

Statistical analysis of performance in virtually every sport is an inexact science, but fans in all sports prefer that such analysis be homogenized to the greatest extent possible to allow for comparison of all players. Fans understand that winning is the only real bottom line. Ultimately, what we care about is who is able to beat everyone else in their own sphere of competition. Pool should be no different.

FYI, Mike Sigel, in a chat I had with him during the recently completed 14.1 event in New Jersey, suggested that 14.1 is a better test of a champion on looser equipment than on tight equipment. Mike suggested that the prospect of a very long trip to the chair made him feel much more pressure at the table when the pockets were more generous.

Finally, this does not mean that you should not take greater pride in a run performed on very difficult equipment than on easy equipment, but, ultimately, you will be better off if, over time, you rate your performance against your opponents.
Click to expand...

Well said, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top