Three Questions

Scaramouche

Scaramouche

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ONE
As tables shrank for 10 X 5 down to 6 X 3, why didn't the size of the balls and pockets decrease?

TWO
In the 2005 9-ball video available on line, for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9l1GxOE5Yc

Buddy Hall has segments around the 30 minute mark showing cue ball control shots.

What Buddy Hall video available for purchase has the best content of similar nature?

THREE
A billiard room has irregularly shaped wall, a protruding column, and a 9 foot table placed on an angle. At the narrowest point, the width is 151 inches. So there is 101 inches for the cue on either side, requiring short cue(s)

The restricted width can be handled by a 36" cue near the column, with adequate space around the rest of the table, or a longer cue, 48", can be used, but required for more shots.

Which alternative would you prefer?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Captain Blood

As tables shrank for 10 X 5 down to 6 X 3, why didn't the size of the balls and pockets decrease?

I mean Scaramouch

I brought this up sort of awhile ago but got no response. My home table is an 8 ft. Brunswick and I wondered what play would be like with balls scaled down accordingly. As far as I know, no such balls are available. Are snooker balls slightly smaller than pool balls? Would they come close to a scaled down pool ball? I'm tempted to buy a set and try it.

Dave Nelson
 
Dave Nelson said:
My home table is an 8 ft. Brunswick and I wondered what play would be like with balls scaled down accordingly. As far as I know, no such balls are available. Are snooker balls slightly smaller than pool balls? Would they come close to a scaled down pool ball? I'm tempted to buy a set and try it.

Dave Nelson
Click to expand...

You can get snooker balls here down to 35mm - 1 3/8"

http://www.fcsnooker.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Snooker_Balls_15.html
 
As for different ball sizes when tables went 5 x 10 to 4.5 x 9 many rms
had both size tables imagine getting balls mixed up what a mess.
 
THREE
A billiard room has irregularly shaped wall, a protruding column, and a 9 foot table placed on an angle. At the narrowest point, the width is 151 inches. So there is 101 inches for the cue on either side, requiring short cue(s)

The restricted width can be handled by a 36" cue near the column, with adequate space around the rest of the table, or a longer cue, 48", can be used, but required for more shots.

Which alternative would you prefer?

===========

Have a similar situation with two columns in my room, both colums are on the same side of the table about 3' from the corner pockets. I placed the table so that only the columns effected play, plenty of room on the short rails and the opposite long rail.

The only shot that is compromised is cue ball deep in corner pocket aiming to the diagonal corner pocket. I use a shorty when this happens, and it rarely happens. :cool:

So, i guess what i'm saying is that my preference is to placing the table so that fewer situations that require using a short cue even if the cue has to be shorter when it's needed. :thumbup:
 
Scaramouche said:
ONE
As tables shrank for 10 X 5 down to 6 X 3, why didn't the size of the balls and pockets decrease?

TWO
In the 2005 9-ball video available on line, for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9l1GxOE5Yc

Buddy Hall has segments around the 30 minute mark showing cue ball control shots.

What Buddy Hall video available for purchase has the best content of similar nature?

THREE
A billiard room has irregularly shaped wall, a protruding column, and a 9 foot table placed on an angle. At the narrowest point, the width is 151 inches. So there is 101 inches for the cue on either side, requiring short cue(s)

The restricted width can be handled by a 36" cue near the column, with adequate space around the rest of the table, or a longer cue, 48", can be used, but required for more shots.

Which alternative would you prefer?
Click to expand...


So, by your theory, the balls on a 6x12 snooker table should be Larger :) when in fact they are smaller, and the pockets are smaller. J/K

td
 
gnatnoop said:
THREE

Have a similar situation with two columns in my room, both colums are on the same side of the table about 3' from the corner pockets. I placed the table so that only the columns effected play, plenty of room on the short rails and the opposite long rail.

The only shot that is compromised is cue ball deep in corner pocket aiming to the diagonal corner pocket. I use a shorty when this happens, and it rarely happens. :cool:

So, i guess what i'm saying is that my preference is to placing the table so that fewer situations that require using a short cue even if the cue has to be shorter when it's needed. :thumbup:
Click to expand...


I asked this question, minus the diagram, more than a year ago and got nothing but smart assed answers. :mad:

You are the first person who gave an opinion and a reason:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
 
I don't think you get any 6x3 tables in the US, but you do in the UK and other countries with British influence like Australia. They use Snooker sized balls, and small pockets with rounded, Snooker-style facings. However my guess is this is more to do with the strong influence of Snooker on the game than a desire to scale the game to the size of the table.

In the USA and elsewhere I assume it was simply a matter of cost and practicality. The neither the ball or table manufacturers would want to have to produce multiple size sets of equipment scaled up or down unless they had to. My understanding is in the USA that Brunswick pushed heavily to move from 10' to 9' tables during the Pool boom of the 1960's when a lot of new rooms were opening up. They wanted to be able to fit more tables in, and at the same time make the game a bit easier for the new casual players coming into the market.
 
Seems to me the objective would be to keep the difficulty level the same regardless of table size.

The pockets should be smaller on a smaller table with the same size balls. This would not impose too much expense.

The distances are shorter so there should be an appropriate reduction in pocket size if the same balls are used.
 
Last edited:
If you reduce the size of the balls, the position of the spots for english, draw and follow-through will also change accordingly. So you would have to adjust for each ball-size when playing anything but center-ball.

I believe that this would take a lot of adjustment on the player's side.

Regards,

Detlev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top