Has anyone ever tried to rate the difficulty level of different pool tables? Would it be meaningful to be able to rate tables with a formula taking into account as many factors related to playability as possible?
unknownpro
unknownpro
table difficulty rating
- Thread starter unknownpro
- Start date
No but they should.
we've discussed it
You could very easily put together a system for rating tables.
As with all systems, they're better if they're sanctioned.
Cloth speed
Rail response
Pocket size/ depth
Ambiance/ obstacles
In level
Everything could be put on a 1-? scale and measured per table.
The only problem would be the environmental changes that we
experience on the table.
For instance, a moderately slow table becomes a very slow table
on a humid day, or someone spills a soda on one.
You could very easily put together a system for rating tables.
As with all systems, they're better if they're sanctioned.
Cloth speed
Rail response
Pocket size/ depth
Ambiance/ obstacles
In level
Everything could be put on a 1-? scale and measured per table.
The only problem would be the environmental changes that we
experience on the table.
For instance, a moderately slow table becomes a very slow table
on a humid day, or someone spills a soda on one.
unknownpro said:
If you can, you should rate the level of pool tables. The last few months I had played on a crappy table with crappy balls. Everything plays really slow. Jumping is quite difficult. Right now I'm playing on a Brunswick table with a new cloth. I totally lost my position game. The balls are rolling like crazy over the table. If you are changing different poolhalls and tables, you should rate it. Otherwise it isn't necessary to do it.
The rating would change as often as the weather. I was thinking that the speed of the bed and the rails, along with the slip of the rails at an angle could be measured at match time. Put that together with the pocket measurements and come up with a rating at the time of a match. It could give Mitch Lawrence something else to say besides the pockets are tight.coopdeville said:
The women should be commended for tightening their tables, I enjoy the matches a lot more now that they miss once in a while.
unknownpro
I don't know how useful this would be. There are so many reasons a table could be difficult. Say one is easy and ten is hard. A table can be difficult to play on because it has or is:
1.) Tight pockets
2.) Dead rails
3.) Unlevel
4.) Bad lighting
5.) Nearby poles or walls
6.) Old cloth
7.) Too fast cloth (that's a neat one)
8.) Cheap balls
9.) etc...
Now, lets say "This table is a 7 to play on." What do we know about the table? Nothing. A table with tight pockets can be a joy to play on if everything else is good. What do you want Mitch to say? A table at a pro tournament is going to be in decent shape, no obstacles, good lighting. What's left to talk about but the size and (possibly) shape of the pockets?
1.) Tight pockets
2.) Dead rails
3.) Unlevel
4.) Bad lighting
5.) Nearby poles or walls
6.) Old cloth
7.) Too fast cloth (that's a neat one)
8.) Cheap balls
9.) etc...
Now, lets say "This table is a 7 to play on." What do we know about the table? Nothing. A table with tight pockets can be a joy to play on if everything else is good. What do you want Mitch to say? A table at a pro tournament is going to be in decent shape, no obstacles, good lighting. What's left to talk about but the size and (possibly) shape of the pockets?
unknownpro said:
The book "science of pocket billiards" by Jack Khoeler....(name may not be just right)
Has a section that breaks down the difficulty of the table based on the pockets. He uses sort of a 3 dimensional graph that rates the table's difficulty based on the following three dimensions:
1) pocket width at the point
2) throat angle
3) shelf depth
It's interesting to read since a table with say 4.5 inch pockets may play more difficult than a table with 4.25 in pockets if the throat angle is less....etc....
Yes, there would seem to be value in table rating...
IMHO, to keep it simple and reliable, you'd need to stick to pocket and table size....it's tough to guage type of felt, speed, and other factors....but, pocket and table size are easier....
Come up with some simple factor.....like you divide the table size by the pocket size....the higher the figure, the more difficult...
7 footer with 4.5 inch pockets, low difficulty factor at 1.55
9 footer with 3.75 pockets, high factor at 2.4
8 footer with 4.25 pockets, med at 1.88
IMHO, to keep it simple and reliable, you'd need to stick to pocket and table size....it's tough to guage type of felt, speed, and other factors....but, pocket and table size are easier....
Come up with some simple factor.....like you divide the table size by the pocket size....the higher the figure, the more difficult...
7 footer with 4.5 inch pockets, low difficulty factor at 1.55
9 footer with 3.75 pockets, high factor at 2.4
8 footer with 4.25 pockets, med at 1.88
ibpoolshark
Registered
table difficulty
i believe this is covered pretty well by jack h. koehler in his book, the science of pocket billards
iirc... they rate from 1 to 20
dave
i believe this is covered pretty well by jack h. koehler in his book, the science of pocket billards
iirc... they rate from 1 to 20
dave
unknownpro said: