Should one pocket be played on a 10 foot table

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
scott in his commentary stated that many of the players i think except shannon? didnt like the 10 foot format for 1p.
he said it left too many "spaces" it was easier to get out of traps and alot of the shots he(scott) likes the bigger table wasnt conducive to his "style" of play (paraphrase)
is playing on 10 footer just a prop game in todays day and age??
is 1p "better" on a 9 footer???
your thoughts are welcome
P.S. One-Pocket should be played only on a 10' table...a 10' snooker table:). Maybe these guys should get out more:D

P.Ps. If Scott is complaining about being given a free chance to win money and he's denigrating the tourney during his commentary while working for AccuStats, then someone should tell him to STFU. Nobody will tell a player anything though so I will...hey Scott...Shut The F@@k Up.

RBL
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,591
Okay, so here are some observations:

The extra table size changed the break results quite a bit. There seemed to be a lack of congestion in the area around the stack at the foot of the table, which allowed more maneuvering room but also opened up bank lanes. Players were not as consistent in the "2-3" diamonds up the side rail for the cue ball to land -- probably due to the extra distance trying to judge the speed??

Shane was by far the least intimidated by longer shots -- whether they were straight in or big cut angles. Actually, he simply was not intimidated at all by the extra distances, whereas everyone else was. His ball striking is very exacting, both in therms of the angles and the speed. Many, many, many of his long banks that did not happen to fall, came very close and hung right around the pocket.

Bridge use came into play a lot more. There was a funny situation in one of Alex's matches where his opponent sold out a bunny shot -- a ball about a foot from Alex's pocket and the cue ball about 6" away and straight in. Instead of looking at it, Alex appeared not to notice the sell-out and was looking at kicking the length of the table at a dead combo on the side rial that sat right below the side pocket, but the ref had got out the bridge for Alex, which got his attention. You could hear Alex laugh and say something like, "I wondered why you got the bridge". Alex had to ask for a shot clock extension at that point to go try the bunny shot with the bridge. But as it turned out, even with the bridge Alex simply could not reach the bunny shot, and he went back to his kick, which he drained.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,591
Scott tried several of his ultra creative shots, but it seemed like almost none of them worked out for him. He sold out a bunch of games that way.
 
Last edited:

One pocket Smitty

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
747
I prefer the playing on a 9 footer for mostly the same reasons Lou stated, the availablity of playing on a 10 footer and the spacing. Plus I am getting old and these eyes just don't see as good as when I was younger.---Smitty
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
One of my few life regrets, is that they started playing 1pkt (and banks) on a five x ten after I hit my 70s. I played on them in Bensingers for 15 years, with plenty of success. Unfortunately, for the Bensinger boys and the 711 boys, there were zero tournaments any longer being played on them, let alone a 1pkt tourn.

Too fukkin bad that they are hard to play on. That's the fukking point. The only argument I ever had against playing on a 5 x 10 was if it rolled badly. Then, the table rolls interfere too much with efficient play. The tables Greg Sullivan sets up, as a general rule, roll plenty good enough.

For example, as much as I liked the big tables, I never gambled on the big table that they had in the Rack. It had horrible rolls, among other deficiencies. There was no way to play any sort of precision pool on it. That opinion was evidently shared by more players than me, because it saw little action in the Rack.

I was 10 to 8 a better player on a big table playing 1pkt, and I was 9 to 8 a better player playing banks on the big' un.

Beard
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
Too fukkin bad that they are hard to play on. That's the fukking point.Damn straight Dawg:) The only argument I ever had against playing on a 5 x 10 was if it rolled badly. Then, the table rolls interfere too much with efficient play. The tables Greg Sullivan sets up, as a general rule, roll plenty good enough.

For example, as much as I liked the big tables, I never gambled on the big table that they had in the Rack. It had horrible rolls, among other deficiencies. There was no way to play any sort of precision pool on it. That opinion was evidently shared by more players than me, because it saw little action in the Rack.

Beard
Freddy,

If I am remembering right, they had two 5x10 tables at the Rack. The looser one was along the back wall(next to the 3-cushion table) and the tight one was next to the snooker table across from the counter. I never played on the looser table but the tight one was the tightest table I've ever played on. I think I only gambled on it one time(maybe two), probably somewhere around '80-'84. I didn't play too well at that time but I did drive to the Rack just to practice on that tight table.

I don't remember it rolling badly but it's been quite a while. I was giving up 8-6 on it and I loved everything about the table.

These guys who want to complain about the 5'x10' table should get a job.

Dennis
 

fred bentivegna

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
6,690
Freddy,

If I am remembering right, they had two 5x10 tables at the Rack. The looser one was along the back wall(next to the 3-cushion table) and the tight one was next to the snooker table across from the counter. I never played on the looser table but the tight one was the tightest table I've ever played on. I think I only gambled on it one time(maybe two), probably somewhere around '80-'84. I didn't play too well at that time but I did drive to the Rack just to practice on that tight table.

I don't remember it rolling badly but it's been quite a while. I was giving up 8-6 on it and I loved everything about the table.

These guys who want to complain about the 5'x10' table should get a job.

Dennis
If I remember, they converted one of those 5 by's to a billiard table. The tightness of the table you are talking about was just another feature that I didnt like about it. The tighter the big table, the more perfect it would have to roll as far as I was concerned.
One more consideration, before the advent of the Diamond table with the single, thicker slate, very few of the 5 x 10 Gold Crowns or Anniversarys played very well. You needed more than that 1 inch of slate for a 5by. Before Diamond, the thicker slate (1 1/4 - 1 1/2 in) was only available on the old antique wooden tables.

That is probably one of the reasons tourns didnt use any 5 x 10s -- and I didnt care if they did or not-- unless they were going to use the wooden antique ones.

Beard
 

Fatboy

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
678
P.S. One-Pocket should be played only on a 10' table...a 10' snooker table:). Maybe these guys should get out more:D

P.Ps. If Scott is complaining about being given a free chance to win money and he's denigrating the tourney during his commentary while working for AccuStats, then someone should tell him to STFU. Nobody will tell a player anything though so I will...hey Scott...Shut The F@@k Up.

RBL


Scott didnt say anything in public that wasnt 10000% stand up and rock solid. I doubt very much he said anything in private that was bad or harmful, I got no beef with what he did say.
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,688
Scott didnt say anything in public that wasnt 10000% stand up and rock solid. I doubt very much he said anything in private that was bad or harmful, I got no beef with what he did say.
scott wasnt whining when he talked about the 10 foot table
he was just relaying what he and some of the other players opinions were.
as i said before he was apolegetic almost about how he played
 

wincardona

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
7,280
Love the ten footer.

Love the ten footer.

I agree that there is no future for playing any pool game on the 5X10, however, playing one pocket on the 5X10 is a very exciting and fun game for ...all level of players. I can honestly say that I enjoyed doing the commentary more for this tournament than for any other tournament I have ever done. When we talk about upper echelon players playing ...one pocket... on a 5X10 today as opposed to years ago, the level of play is much better today. I say this because there are more better one pocket players today than there were years ago and with this understanding the best players years ago were playing mostly against weaker opponents. One pocket on a 5X10 is a ..ball strikers table..when you talk about the upper echelon players. A great mover with good ball pocketing skills will not beat a great ball pocketer with good moving skills playing on a 5X10. That was proven in this tournament (to a degree) Billy Smith says that Bugs and Artie could of beaten players like Alex and Shane, I disagree. They would have had a much better chance beating them on a smaller table than on the big table because the moving part of the game is rewarded more on the smaller table. I don't think that you can name a player that played on a 5X10 30 years ago that could pocket balls and was as savvy as either Alex or Shane, I don't know of any. Anyways we won't have to worry about debating this any further simply because there doesn't figure to be any more one pocket tournaments held on the 5X10..case closed.

Dr. Bill
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
4,125
if there are any more big 5x10 one hole events, sylver ochoa can show up and hold his own....good equipment for his game.
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
Scott didnt say anything in public that wasnt 10000% stand up and rock solid. I doubt very much he said anything in private that was bad or harmful, I got no beef with what he did say.
I said "if he's denigrating the tourney while working for AccuStats". It doesn't matter if it was 10000% stand-up(whatever the hell that is) and rock solid.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
I was actually surprised to see any negative feedback on the 10 footers in here.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
I was actually surprised to see any negative feedback on the 10 footers in here.

I think they would be fine if there were more of them out there. Growing up I'd go downtown in SF and play on one of the 10 footers at The Palace and have a ball. But nowadays it's doubtful you could convince enough pool room owners to put in any 10' tables, so it's really just a novelty game.

I also agree with Dr. Bill. What the 10' table does is reward the players with better ball striking skills and/or who can execute with robotic precision. Some guys, it doesn't matter whether the ball is two feet or ten feet away -- they're going to hit it precisely. Some guys, even at the pro level, it matters if the ball is further away and flaws in their ball striking are going to be magnified.

Lou Figueroa
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,421
It's been years since I played on a 5 X 10. Maybe I'll try one out in Tunica. There is next to zero chance that they'll ever become popular again. These days it's nice to even see a pool room with 9-footers!

The 10-footers took up too much space, so smaller tables equaled more tables and more profit. Similarly bar boxes were a big boon for taverns.

But in a perfect world, 10-footers would reign. The game was intended to be played on the larger tables. I doubt that we'd see nearly as many run-outs in rotation games, or in 1P for that matter. It SHOULD take a high skill level to play pool well. If the game were simple, none of us would be here. Steve would have to change the site's name to "one beef.com" in order to attract the argumentative amongst us...:D

Doc
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
I was actually surprised to see any negative feedback on the 10 footers in here.
TD,

I was also surprised to see negativity regarding the 5x10's. One critique I did hear (from a person who was there) was that the pockets were too big. Actually that they were "sloppy". Everyone has a different definition of "big" though so who knows. All I know is that IF Pat ever does this again, on a 5x10, I'm in up-front for the whole nine-yards. Even if I have to work that weekend as I just had to do the past weekend:(.

I think it's a wonderful idea and I think it was pulled off almost to perfection from what I've read.

Kudos to Pat Fleming and AccuStats for a great idea & production.

Dennis
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
1,860
TD,

I was also surprised to see negativity regarding the 5x10's. One critique I did hear (from a person who was there) was that the pockets were too big. Actually that they were "sloppy". Everyone has a different definition of "big" though so who knows. All I know is that IF Pat ever does this again, on a 5x10, I'm in up-front for the whole nine-yards. Even if I have to work that weekend as I just had to do the past weekend:(.

I think it's a wonderful idea and I think it was pulled off almost to perfection from what I've read.

Kudos to Pat Fleming and AccuStats for a great idea & production.

Dennis

Why should we care?

Would you care if Accu-Stats did a 1pocket tournament on a 6x12 snooker table? What is the attraction? How does it relate to the average 1pocket player? What is there to identify with when what is being shot has next to nothing to do with what you are *ever* going to shoot?

Lou Figueroa
 

Cowboy Dennis

Suspended
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
11,123
Why should we care?

Would you care if Accu-Stats did a 1pocket tournament on a 6x12 snooker table? What is the attraction? How does it relate to the average 1pocket player? What is there to identify with when what is being shot has next to nothing to do with what you are *ever* going to shoot?

Lou Figueroa
I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to but I'll tell you why most should or do care.

Most of "us" sports fans love watching players do things that we cannot do. Whether it's "Magic" throwing no-look passes, "Bird" hitting a long, off-angle 3, Michael doing what Michael did, Bobby Fischer playing 12 move combinations to checkmate, Montana or Bradshaw throwing a football where it didn't belong, Tyson having guys beat before they stepped into the ring, Arnie, Jack, Phil or Tiger shooting phenomenal shots, Gretzky doing his thing, John Holmes doing Marilyn Chambers, all of them have one thing in common for us regular guys; they can do things that we cannot do. That's the reason we watch them.

Would you want to watch Tiger & Phil or Jack & Arnie play miniature golf? Would you want to see Bird & Magic play half-court or 3 on 3? Your neighbor hammer his wife? Of course not. You want to see the best at their chosen game/sport tested to the max. All of the best one-pocket players in the past played on a 5 x 10 and that's where the players of today can show how they match up with the players of yesteryear.

In the "Twilight Zone" episode "A Game Of Pool", Jessie Cardiff says to Fats Brown: "I don't need a challenge". Fats Brown replies: "Everyone needs a challenge. Someone from the past who says "match this boy and make it better". This is what the players are up against and trying to do. Some are just trying to eat tonight and some are trying to match-up with long-gone heroes & legends.

As to your question about 6x12 snooker table one-pocket: I have played it a few times but I much prefer a 5 x 10 snooker table for that game. It was a big game here for quite awhile and to my knowledge it was the only game that Paul Brusilof would play for big money. At least until the Rack closed down.

I realize that most today can't relate to one-pocket on a 5 x 10 but they can't relate to playing at Augusta either, or playing in the Super Bowl or World Series. Bottom line to me is that I want to see the greatest players of today tested to their limits and see who comes out on top. It will change from week to week and year to year but it's what I love seeing.

No golfers ever complain about the Masters being a course where they will never play or the British Open being on courses they will never set foot on. The history that is there is respected and revered by all. We only watch to compare ourselves to the greatest while we prepare to go in to work tomorrow:(.

Dennis
 
Top