I have always wondered why 15 ball rotation (the traditional game, not the new "American rotation") is not the chosen game to measure pro skills. Obviously I favor straight pool, others may favor 8 ball and one pocket, but as far as playing balls in rotation I don't think 15 ball rotation could be beaten.
First the break: Even though the break in this game would eventually figured out to a certain degree (playing position on the one for example), the congestion caused by 15 balls and the unpredictability of the full rack would make it immune to the problems of other rotation games.
Second, the gameplay: Safteties, kicking, shotmaking, position play, rotation has got it all. No one is going to run the set out, and if they did it would surely be an astonishing feat. No softbreak identical layouts. IMHO you have to be a complete pool player to play rotation at a high level, which explains why the Phillipinos are doing so well at all games, even games they have hardly ever played before.
Third, fairness: Although there is a certain degree of unfairness in the fact that the lowest numbered balls have the least points to them, still you will never get the sitiuation where a player runs all the balls but one, and then loses.
Fourth, simplicity: It is a feature of all good poolgames that they have a certain simplicity about them. Rotation has that. You score the number of points on the ball you sink, doesn't get any easier than that. One of the many reasons why bonus ball and Power Snooker failed is that they are just to darned complicated for any viewers to bother learning.
Fifth, integrity: Perhaps this needs a bit of explaining. To me there is something unnatural about the "ball in hand anywhere on the table rule", it feels like cheating to me. Shooting a spot shot, shooting from the kitchen and having the option of taking the the table as it is or passing it to your opponent are much better IMHO. That way you essentially earn every opportunity after a foul.
Sixth, challenging the pros: While I don't necessarily always agree with the whining that 9 ball does not challenge the pros, playing rotation ought to stop that whining forever.
First the break: Even though the break in this game would eventually figured out to a certain degree (playing position on the one for example), the congestion caused by 15 balls and the unpredictability of the full rack would make it immune to the problems of other rotation games.
Second, the gameplay: Safteties, kicking, shotmaking, position play, rotation has got it all. No one is going to run the set out, and if they did it would surely be an astonishing feat. No softbreak identical layouts. IMHO you have to be a complete pool player to play rotation at a high level, which explains why the Phillipinos are doing so well at all games, even games they have hardly ever played before.
Third, fairness: Although there is a certain degree of unfairness in the fact that the lowest numbered balls have the least points to them, still you will never get the sitiuation where a player runs all the balls but one, and then loses.
Fourth, simplicity: It is a feature of all good poolgames that they have a certain simplicity about them. Rotation has that. You score the number of points on the ball you sink, doesn't get any easier than that. One of the many reasons why bonus ball and Power Snooker failed is that they are just to darned complicated for any viewers to bother learning.
Fifth, integrity: Perhaps this needs a bit of explaining. To me there is something unnatural about the "ball in hand anywhere on the table rule", it feels like cheating to me. Shooting a spot shot, shooting from the kitchen and having the option of taking the the table as it is or passing it to your opponent are much better IMHO. That way you essentially earn every opportunity after a foul.
Sixth, challenging the pros: While I don't necessarily always agree with the whining that 9 ball does not challenge the pros, playing rotation ought to stop that whining forever.
Last edited:
