PDA

View Full Version : Table Sizing Question

1hit1der
09-11-2006, 12:49 PM
Maybe this question's trivial, maybe it can be explained historically, but here it is:

A "9 x 4.5 foot" pool table has a playing area of 100 x 50 inches. Doing the math, "9 x 4.5 foot" = 108 x 54 inches, so it's 8 inches longer but only 4 inches wider than the playing area. First, I thought maybe the 9 x 4.5 could be measured to the diamonds, but it didn't make sense that the long rail diamonds would be closer than the short rail diamonds (they could be, I just haven't noticed yet). Or did tables start at 100 x 50 inches and the marketers just needed a more convenient way to sell the tables so they just called them 9 x 4.5 foot?

Similarly, on the smaller table sizes, the selling size is 8 inches longer and 4 inches wider than the actual playing area. How did we ever come up with such a convention?

Bob_Jewett
09-11-2006, 06:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1hit1der:</font><hr> Maybe this question's trivial, maybe it can be explained historically, ... <hr /></blockquote>
On 5x10 tables and 4.5x9 tables, the smaller dimension is the full width of the green part including two inches on each side for the cushions. The long dimension is then made right to give a 2:1 ratio in the distances between the noses of the cushions.

There are at least two different sizes of "4x8" tables.

In all cases for pool tables, the length is twice the width, nose-to-nose on the cushion.

scaramouche
09-12-2006, 10:17 AM