200 points...

Texas Carom Club

9ball did to billiards what hiphop did to america
Silver Member
I love it, hope to watch if I can, if it's not Sunday and on when the big 1pkt match final is
 

wigglybridge

14.1 straight pool!
Silver Member
the way everyone is playing on the tv table, it is brutally stoopid-long and exhausting to watch, with hundreds of innings (probably not much of an exaggeration, if any).

it has also delayed every single match by multiple hours. the whole thing becomes tedious, even to someone wholly addicted to straight pool.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
the way everyone is playing on the tv table, it is brutally stoopid-long and exhausting to watch, with hundreds of innings (probably not much of an exaggeration, if any).

it has also delayed every single match by multiple hours. the whole thing becomes tedious, even to someone wholly addicted to straight pool.
I think that AtLarge's statistics for the group phase over in the main forum are from the TV table:

Average (mean) match score: 100 - 43 (losers' scores ranged from 0 - 90)

Average (mean) match length: 76 min. (range 44 min. - 118 min.)

Average (mean) points per minute: 1.9 (range 1.5 - 2.4)​

Do you feel that about 2 balls per minute is too slow? Has the pace slowed down? How long should a 200-point match take?
 

CueAndMe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would think that the higher the target is for the matches, the more certain the tournament winner will be the most deserving player. But, 150 is probably plenty. Watching straight pool can be torture or meditation for me. The point target is probably the least important factor to me as a viewer. There's a playing rhythm that shouldn't be too slow. Although I like a few seconds to try to guess the right patterns, fast never bothers me unless it leads to stupid mistakes.
 

wigglybridge

14.1 straight pool!
Silver Member
Bob, i meant the quality of play on the TV table... some top-shelf pro's with extensive straight pool experience taking many, many innings to get out.

but, yes, things also do seem to grind in 200-point matches. the championship format was always 150 points, why the change? again, i could see it -- maybe -- for the final. but for all these elimination matches? maybe if you're there and can watch the non-TV tables, which i gather are not quite so tight on the side pockets, and perhaps don't have the Andy cloth, which is obviously making everybody crazy? maybe then it's not so grueling.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
...is questionable for a final.

for elimination rounds it is just Wrong.

Here are some stats for your consideration.

The number of streamed matches to 200 points in the World 14.1 was 7 in 2016 and 8 in 2015.

Average number of innings per match:
• 2016 -- 15.0 for match winners and 14.3 for match losers
• 2015 -- 6.9 for match winners and 6.4 for match losers

Average number of attempted scoring innings (i.e., excluding innings consisting of only a safety or an intentional foul):
• 2016 -- 8.1 for match winners and 7.6 for match losers
• 2015 -- 4.5 for match winners and 3.6 for match losers

Average (mean) match length:
• 2016 -- 162 min.
• 2015 -- 138 min.

And if you don't like long matches, you'd better skip the finals. They have been to 300 points the past two years (and will be again this year) and lasted about 5 3/4 hours each year, including an intermission of about a half hour. [But if a quick player like Appleton, Hohmann, Immonen, or Vann Corteza is in the finals and really gets going, it could be over in 2 or 3 hours!]

As for 2017, just 4 matches have been played so far to 200 points (all Friday), and the first 3 were all lengthy, averaging 206 minutes. The 4th one was just 132 minutes thanks to some good play by Lee Vann Corteza.
 

john coloccia

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Bring on the long matches. If you don't like watching pool, why are you watching? Just wait until the results come out the next day.
 

14-1StraightMan

High Run 127
Silver Member
200 point matches are a good thing when the tournament gets into the money rounds. Specially when it comes down to the quality of these skilled players. It gives both players time to shake off the butterflies. Both should have amble time at the table. The format of this tournament with the different levels is very fair and exciting.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here are some stats for your consideration.

The number of streamed matches to 200 points in the World 14.1 was 7 in 2016 and 8 in 2015.

Average number of innings per match:
• 2016 -- 15.0 for match winners and 14.3 for match losers
• 2015 -- 6.9 for match winners and 6.4 for match losers

...
I wonder if the marked slowdown in 2016 was due to the TV table (for the later matches) which had very small side pockets.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Hohmann just trailed Immonen by 96 (after runs of 68 and 55 by Immonen), but Hohmann stepped up and ran 112 & out.

So Immonen would have won had it been a game to 150. I'd say it was well worth watching for the 3 hours.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I wonder if the marked slowdown in 2016 was due to the TV table (for the later matches) which had very small side pockets.

I think it was at least partially that. But it also reflected the small number of matches involved, including an outlier game in those 2016 stats -- the Immonen/Zvi match went 46 innings for each player with 22 missed shots and 30 fouls (22 intentional).

As for that table last year, I think (I'm not sure) they may be using the same one this year. But I have heard no mention of that, perhaps because Rasson doesn't seem to be a sponsor this year.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I think it was at least partially that. But it also reflected the small number of matches involved, including an outlier game in those 2016 stats -- the Immonen/Zvi match went 46 innings for each player with 22 missed shots and 30 fouls (22 intentional).

As for that table last year, I think (I'm not sure) they may be using the same one this year. But I have heard no mention of that, perhaps because Rasson doesn't seem to be a sponsor this year.

Immonen and Zvi were the first match on the table with small pockets (which was installed late in the tournament) and both seemed spooked. It was very hard to make a ball in the sides from anywhere in the rack area, so patterns had to be altered. A few matches later Earl stepped up and ran 135-and-out which was the high run for that event, IIRC.

You could not fit two balls into the side pockets on the Rasson table in 2016.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Immonen and Zvi were the first match on the table with small pockets (which was installed late in the tournament) and both seemed spooked. It was very hard to make a ball in the sides from anywhere in the rack area, so patterns had to be altered. A few matches later Earl stepped up and ran 135-and-out which was the high run for that event, IIRC.

You could not fit two balls into the side pockets on the Rasson table in 2016.

Correct. And whether they are using that table again, I don't know. Several mentions have been made of tight side pockets.

Another possibility is that it is the Olhausen table used in 2013 when Appleton ran the 200. But I don't remember that 2013 table as being particularly tight.
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well, we just had a semifinal match that went 4 hours and 23 minutes. And, at least near the end, it was interesting!
 

mikemosconi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have a problem with 200 points and I have a problem with using 4 1/2 inch pockets for straight pool. Why? I attended the matches on Thursday this week at Steinway,I had a conversation with one of the top pros- Mika - he admitted that the "REAL" tournament does not start until Friday - essentially when all of the guys who don't play pool full time are eliminated. Now I am a fairly good non - pro straight pool player who can get up and run 60 or 70 on standard pockets- not on 41/2s. So in a 150 point match with larger pockets- I have the opportunity to beat any pro in a given match- if I have two good runs and a few good safes. I don't stand a chance on 41/2s and 200 or 300 points for sure- so why bother to participate for a $550 entry fee?
If the purpose of holding this tournament is to keep straight pool alive and interesting as I have seen advertised by the promoters- i would suggest making it a tournament within reach of the REAL supporters of this grand game - tight pockets and longer matches just narrow the field down to a predicitble, elite few as we can see by the results- they don't lie - and you just do not generate any NEW support or interest in the game- It would be much more fun to see guys running 100s more often- just my opinion.
 

wigglybridge

14.1 straight pool!
Silver Member
i also found all of the 200-point matches on Saturday really, Really interesting. no problem with those. the match between Mika & Thorsten was Super, and obviously the result would've been different if it were a 150-point match.

maybe my perceived problem on Friday was just the bad play? i've had this reaction before in this tournament, though, so i'm not sure.

or maybe it's like good art: "i know it when i see it"
 
Top