Less clusters of balls means less having to break balls out, that don't make pocketing the balls any easier, the player still has to do that! Racks played out on a 9ft can be easy or hard depending on the cluster of balls too, wouldn't you agree?
When is a pool pocket too tight?
- Thread starter Straightpool_99
- Start date
Less clusters of balls means less having to break balls out, that don't make pocketing the balls any easier, the player still has to do that! Racks played out on a 9ft can be easy or hard depending on the cluster of balls too, wouldn't you agree?
Of course. Regardless of the table size some racks are harder than others, depending on how the balls lie.
What got me off track was when Chris made the statement that a 10' table with 4 1/2" pockets was comparable to a 9ft table with 4" pockets, which i called BS on because both tables when shooting a ball into a pocket from 2' away, the 4" pocket stands a greater chance of rejecting the ball if trying to cheat the pocket for position on the next ball. Every table is the same size 2' from the corner pocket, the only variable is how far away the cue ball is from the object ball. If it's your first shot coming to the table that's one thing, but if it's your second shot, the distance between the balls should have been cut down with cue ball control from the previous shot.
Last edited:
I'm not getting my info from anyone, it's just common sense simple math. If a ball is shot from 11% further distance, the target is going to be 11% smaller (tighter). Same concept as to why pocketing balls on a Diamond Smart 7-foot table is so much easier than pocketing balls on the same size pockets on a 9' Diamond - all the shots on the 7-footer are shot from a much shorter distance from the pockets.
So in your opinion, there is no difference in toughness between a 10' table with 4-1/2" corners and a 9' table with 4-1/2" corners? If that is true, you are dispelling Dr Dave's data regarding table difficulty factors for measuring table toughness, where he's computes in a 10% increase in difficulty factor for 10' tables vs 9' tables. So what would you say is an accurate equivalent toughness in pocket sizes between a 9' and a 10' table?
Yeah I think I'd probably agree with you there, the 10ft table with 4.5 inch pockets is probably an easier bet than 9ft and 4 inch pockets.
Dr Dave's info is an estimate from the measurements of the parts of the tables. It is not derived from real life play on the various tables. He gives more weight to pocket variations, than table size variations. I don't agree with his estimate, and have said that many times on his table difficulty threads.
I think the opposite is true. There should be more weight giving to table size variations, than pocket size variations.
I would bet as high as the stars if we set up two diamonds with the exact same specs except what you wrote above, and had 100 players play 20 racks of 9 ball and 10 innings of straight pool, there would be more balls pocketed on the 9' table than the 10' table.
Are you saying more balls would be made on a 9ft with 4" corner pockets vs a 10' with 4 1/2" corner pockets?
Yes, exactly.
You're assuming the cue ball is always on the rail when shooting, that's the only time that 11% more playing surface comes into play. See, the thing is, cue ball control isn't just to line up the next shot to cut down the difficulty factor, cue ball control is also the needed skill to reduce the size of the table you're playing on. What Dr. Dave needs to work on, is what is the average distance between the cue ball and object ball that a player shoots, excluding any shots that are not attempting to pocket a ball like break shots and safes. Nust as an example, player A may average 31" between his object ball and the cue ball, while player B may only average 22". What that tells me, is that player B has better cue ball control, while player A may be a better shot maker. But on a bigger table like a 10' player A may be at a disadvantage against player B because player A may not realize he needs to cut down that average distance to compensate for the increased playing surface which equals longer shots overall. Case in point, Earl beat Shane 15-14 on the 10' in Tunica several years back, both have long strokes and favor longer distances between the cue ball and object balls, then Earl lost to Landon 15-4. Landon playes a much more controlled, tight pattern cue ball....and it showed.
Couldn't be more wrong.
You clearly have no back ground in 14.1
Cobra, between a 7’ table vs a 9’ table, both diamonds with pro cut pockets. Which would players make more balls on shooting exclusively 14.1 for 100 innings on both tables?
It doesn't have to be long!
I typically play fairly short races that only last a few innings, say race to 50, sometimes even only 30.
I appreciate from a spectating point of view its not everyone's cup of tea (that might be a British expression, not sure), but I think its a great game to play and it doesn't have to be a race to 300 or anything crazy like that!
Mosconi ran 526 on an 8 foot table.
200+ on a 10 ft table.
10 more pages of arguing coming right up.
200+ on a 10 ft table.
10 more pages of arguing coming right up.
Whenever I can convince someone to try it with me I just give it 30 points also
My cup of tea is the long boring games
1 pkt,14.1, snooker , getting into golf alittle bit now
and the classic Carom games are my favorite of course
I tried it in an 8ft one day when that's all that was available
It's pretty annoying , not much easier either for me anyways
I don't play much these days, but typically when I do it will be 3 sets: 8-Ball race to 5/7, 9-Ball race to 5/7 and then 14.1 race to 30/50.
It adds a bit of variety and keeps things interesting
