7/9 * 4.5 = 3.5 inch pockets
7/9 * 4.5 = 3.5 inch pockets
How about 2.5 inch pockets and we'll just pretend it's Russian Pyramid? Squeezing it in like the table's a homeschooled prom queen.
Nah, for bar-table pro pool the shot clock just needs to be 20 seconds or under.
What's with all the bar table talk on this forum as of late?
In my opinion, it's not even pool anymore if pockets are less than 4 1/2 inches on worn cloth and 4 1/4 inches on new cloth. Cheating the pocket is an essential part of the game of pool, as well as being able to hit firm shots down the long rail that can go in.
I don't think many people want to see pro pool played on smaller tables. I believe we all want pool to survive though and the reality is that pool table time should be twenty dollars an hour or more for the floor space a table and room to shoot takes up. A compromise is smaller tables. I think five by ten, pool or snooker, is the best size table. It's big enough to be challenging and small enough that the bridge isn't called into play seemingly every other shot sometimes as twelve foot tables can seem.
However, as a compromise to reduce square footage needed I have been thinking for around ten years that a 3.5x7 table with snooker style pockets might be an acceptable compromise, not something I really want but a cue sport to enjoy for many years into the future. I am trying to locate decent tables near enough to get to for regular play now and over and over I find that somebody tried a nice pool hall a few years ago in one nearby town or city but it's gone now, just couldn't meet the monthly nut. Chinese eight ball may be the future for a lot of reasons, interestingly it is played on exactly the table I have been talking about.
Reducing the pocket size on seven foot tables is a good idea but the math is a little more complicated I believe. Take the pocket size that you like on a nine footer and subtract 2-1/8", the size of a ball. Then run the formula on that number and add the ball size back.
4.5 - 2.125 = 2.375.
2.375 x 7/9 = 1.847 with a little rounding.
1.847" + 2.125" ball diameter = 3.972" new pocket width if my math hasn't missed.
I think the shorter table will still play a little easier than the math indicates so probably reducing the pockets a little more to 3.875", three and seven-eighth, would make the degree of difficulty very close between a nine foot table with four and a half inch pockets and a seven foot table. Might still take a little more tweaking, it will be easy to see when speed ratings are calculated.
This is keeping square pocket corners which I have to say I prefer playing pool. More than anything I would like to see a thriving cue sport and I would accept whatever changes were necessary to get cues back in people's hands and people watching a cue sport on TV so a hundred or two men and that many more women could make a living at it. If that means seven foot tables or seven foot tables with rounded pocket corners I could get used to either one.
Just my 2.276 cents worth, rounded down to two cents even. :thumbup:
Hu