Opponent interaction in sports/pool

[DaWizard]

I was thinking about interaction in sports. Some sports are extremely interactive and some have almost no interaction. Defining interaction is a bit difficult: activity, influence on the opponent's game - come to mind.

Some examples:
- BJJ/wrestling: continuous activity, continuous influence
- Football, soccer, waterpolo: continuous activity, less influence when not in possession of the ball
- Volleyball, tennis: continuos activity, but kind of turn based influence
- Racing, cycling: continuous activity, only some influence on opponent
- Darts, golf: only active on your turn, hardly any influence on the opponent

Pool is in a sense mostly a sologame with a bit of interaction. I can't do anything when you shoot, I can only influence your game when I leave you a shot, a significant part of a match the players are not playing.

I would rank the big 5 for pros like this:
- straight pool: very little interaction
- 9ball: some interaction
- 10ball: tiny bit more interaction
- one pocket: most interaction
Not sure where to put 8ball?

It just made me realize that it's unfortunate that two great players playing eachother don't necessarily make great match. In tennis you will surely get fire works because they have a lot of interaction, in pool there's a chance they barely get to shoot. But is that a bad thing?

Not sure what the point of posting is. I guess it's mostly to share the thought and maybe someone else can make more sense out of it.

 

[sjm]

Yes, pool is not very interactive, but you do have some control of the quantity and the quality of opponent's chances.

You're right in saying that two great players don't ensure a great match in a game where people can sit you down for a few racks. Of course, this doesn't happen much anymore in Matchroom events with the more difficult break rule, but as we saw, Raga ran a 7-pack at the European Open last week, so you never know.

 

[Dunnn51]

If ya playin' a match of anything with/against Earl, you will get more Interaction than you'll ever want!
Just sayin'.
(I have a great deal of respect for the man)

 

[The_JV]

Yes, pool is not very interactive, but you MAY have some control of the quantity and the quality of opponent's chances.

Fixed that...

This is why I've never consider pool a sport. It's a situational game at best.

As far as interaction between players. I've always struggled with this. I can personally walk on either side of the fence. Not say a word and be a statue, or have full blown conversations between shots and chat up the waitress when waiting for my turn at the table. I generally let my opponent determine the level to which they prefer the banter.

I wish players could interact with the crowds more. Even those with reputations for doing so, (Alex P.) don't really have the opportunity with the shot clocks these days. Focus needs to be on the game.

 

[DaWizard]

Fixed that...

This is why I've never consider pool a sport. It's a situational game at best.

As far as interaction between players. I've always struggled with this. I can personally walk on either side of the fence. Not say a word and be a statue, or have full blown conversations between shots and chat up the waitress when waiting for my turn at the table. I generally let my opponent determine the level to which they prefer the banter.

I wish players could interact with the crowds more. Even those with reputations for doing so, (Alex P.) don't really have the opportunity with the shot clocks these days. Focus needs to be on the game.

To be clear, by interacting I don't mean communication, but actual ingame actions.

I think you understood and just elaborated on the possibility to communicate. But to prevent confusion: it's about being active and being able to influence the game/outcome.

So if we would want to make pool more 'interactive' you might get:
- players taking turns, like chess
- players physically claiming space where others can't shoot (this is surely going to end up in fighting)
- players playing on a table with rolling balls (interfering others shots)

Frankly it seems there's a good reason pool is not so interactive. And judging by popularity: 1pocket is not so populair, while it has way more interaction and the possibility to run balls.

So in conclusion: interaction is probably not a good parameter for fun to play/watch pool. Also the precious material (cues, cloth) and the need for fine touch doesnt allow very dynamic interaction.

 

[Island Drive]

One on one tennis/pro matches are pretty much the same.
Two players goin' at it.

 

[sjm]

Fixed that...

This is why I've never consider pool a sport. It's a situational game at best.

As far as interaction between players. I've always struggled with this. I can personally walk on either side of the fence. Not say a word and be a statue, or have full blown conversations between shots and chat up the waitress when waiting for my turn at the table. I generally let my opponent determine the level to which they prefer the banter.

I wish players could interact with the crowds more. Even those with reputations for doing so, (Alex P.) don't really have the opportunity with the shot clocks these days. Focus needs to be on the game.

Yes, that's a well-reasoned post. On the other hand, even at pro level (for now, let's say that means 750 Fargo or better), only about one third of the racks are break and run racks. The other two thirds of the racks are ones in which both players have an opportunity to get to the table and those are interactive racks.

The matches with no interactive play must happen when I'm not around. I can only remember seeing somebody run more than a five-pack once in my forty-eight years of attending major tournaments. Pool isn't as interactive as tennis or basketball and it never will be, but 99% of the time, the pool player has some control over the quantity and quality of opponent's chances.

I don't think the social side of the game is the subject of this thread.

 

[The_JV]

Yes, that's a well-reasoned post. On the other hand, even at pro level (for now, let's say that means 750 Fargo or better), only about one third of the racks are break and run racks. The other two thirds of the racks are ones in which both players have an opportunity to get to the table and those are interactive racks.

I wonder what we consider "interactive" though. If just standing at the table and eventually poking the stick at the CB is the definition then I wholeheartedly agree with you. If we mean that both players have an opportunity to enhance their score. Well things change a bit. I don't necessarily consider a player without a potting opportunity as engaged in the rack. While we don't see sets generally ran out start to finish. We do see sets wherein one opponent never gets a clean look.

I don't think the social side of the game is the subject of this thread.

Yes, I missed the point. Honestly I have never considered pool an "interactive" game such as been discussed in this thread.

 

[sjm]

I don't necessarily consider a player without a potting opportunity as engaged in the rack.

It is on this point where we differ, and that's perfectly OK. To you, a player engaged in a safety/tactical sequence is not participating unless they win that sequence and, thereby, earn a shot.

To me, if you get to the table, whether you have a shot, a kick, a jump, a safety shot or even a pushout, you are participating and have a chance to win the rack.

 

[DaWizard]

One on one tennis/pro matches are pretty much the same.
Two players goin' at it.

There are two differences:
1) the number of interactions
In tennis each time the ball passes the net there's an interaction. Player 1's action has a chance to determine the outcome of the point and player 2 needs to react. In an average rally players hit the ball 2-4 times. In a long rally maybe 10 times?

In pool there's a lot less interaction. In a rack getting a shot after your opponent left the table = an interaction. A player breaking and running is not an interaction. So in a rack of 9ball there are about 2-4 interactions? Max 10-15 in looong racks?

2) the dynamic of an interaction
In tennis you recieve a moving ball. The way the opponent plays the ball (spin, speed, position, Edit: and the position of opponent) influences your next action and chance to get a point.

In pool you recieve a "table as is". The way your opponent left the balls (position) influences your next action and chance to get a point.

So in tennis there's a lot more interactions and each interaction has more characteristics. Not saying that's terrible or something, it's just a difference in the nature of the game.

Interactions in wrestling are even more different: almost 100% continuous interaction (tennis is turn based, pool too, but you get to have solo action in your turn) and the characteristics of the interactions are way different.

 

[DaWizard]

It is on this point where we differ, and that's perfectly OK. To you, a player engaged in a safety/tactical sequence is not participating unless they win that sequence and, thereby, earn a shot.

To me, if you get to the table, whether you have a shot, a kick, a jump, a safety shot or even a pushout, you are participating and have a chance to win the rack.

Yes, that's how I intended it. That is the moment you recieve the opponent's action (interaction).

In a game like soccer the teams still interact if they don't have the ball. Players still have to take defensieve action. But it is less chanceful action compared to when they have posession of the ball.

In pool you can shark when not shooting, but only a couple times before a fist to the face is the next interaction

 

[straightline]

In world domination they have spies and magic besides the guns and bombs...

 

[The_JV]

It is on this point where we differ, and that's perfectly OK. To you, a player engaged in a safety/tactical sequence is not participating unless they win that sequence and, thereby, earn a shot.

To me, if you get to the table, whether you have a shot, a kick, a jump, a safety shot or even a pushout, you are participating and have a chance to win the rack.

While anything can happen, and it sometimes does. We do often see players completely hand cuffed by those in primary control of the table.

I don't even consider a player engaged in a safety/tactical battle if their "opportunity" is mere slash and hope to hit. A player need not win a moves battle to be engaged imo. However they do need an valid opportunity to be the eventual winner. For all your years watching the game. I'm sure you've seen more than a few occasions wherein players don't have a chance at a positive outcome.

I guess by definition if you get to push your cue into the CB then you've had an opportunity. That said, we're kidding ourselves if that's the only criteria

 

[sjm]

While anything can happen, and it sometimes does. We do often see players completely hand cuffed by those in primary control of the table.

I don't even consider a player engaged in a safety/tactical battle if their "opportunity" is mere slash and hope to hit. A player need not win a moves battle to be engaged imo. However they do need an valid opportunity to be the eventual winner. For all your years watching the game. I'm sure you've seen more than a few occasions wherein players don't have a chance at a positive outcome.

I guess by definition if you get to push your cue into the CB then you've had an opportunity. That said, we're kidding ourselves if that's the only criteria

Yes, occasionally (less than 1% of the matches at pro level in my opinion) one is suffocated has almost no decent opportunities, but I'm not going to use those outliers as evidencing that pool isn't fundamentally interactive. Obviously, pool is far less interactive than boxing, tennis, etc.

 

[The_JV]

Yes, occasionally (less than 1% of the matches at pro level in my opinion) one is suffocated has almost no decent opportunities, but I'm not going to use those outliers as evidencing that pool isn't fundamentally interactive. Obviously, pool is far less interactive than boxing, tennis, etc.

Guess I'm just too far on the other side of this discussion. If you use boxing and tennis as benchmarks for what's interactive even on the extreme end, then I wouldn't consider pool at all. It's a stretch otherwise as it is without those comparables.

I think my reasoning is driven by my competitive approach to the game. I generally don't consider my opponent when I'm at the table. My focus is on execution to manipulate the table in the best way possible. Be that potting a ball, or playing safe. In fact the only time I consider my opponent is when I believe I can take advantage of weaker skill and table IQ.

I won't attempt to argue the 1% value you place on suffocating matches. Great way to phrase that by the way. You've watched far more elite pool then I ever will, so my smaller sample size is most certainly an inaccurate rate of occurrence.

 

[Maniac]

For all your years watching the game. I'm sure you've seen more than a few occasions wherein players don't have a chance at a positive outcome.

I guess by definition if you get to push your cue into the CB then you've had an opportunity. That said, we're kidding ourselves if that's the only criteria

This back and forth brings to mind two matches I watched on Youtube. A 10-ball match (race to eight) at Griff's between Alex Pagulayan and Eklent Kaci where Kaci won the lag and the next time Alex got out of his chair was to shake Kaci's hand at the end of the match.

The other match was SVB and Josh Roberts played an 8-ball match (race to nine with alternating breaks) that Shane won 9-7. Not one, single shot was missed in all of the 16 games played. Shane won 9-7 because Josh scratched on one of his breaks. Talk about a total lack of interaction (per game)!

As amazing as the SVB/JR match was in proficiency, it was extremely boring to watch. As far as the Pagulayan/Kaci match goes, I was just amazed that Kaci made a ball on eight consecutive breaks with a shot on the lowest numbered ball eight times in a row.

 

[Maniac]

I think my reasoning is driven by my competitive approach to the game. I generally don't consider my opponent when I'm at the table. My focus is on execution to manipulate the table in the best way possible. Be that potting a ball, or playing safe. In fact the only time I consider my opponent is when I believe I can take advantage of weaker skill and table IQ.

That's a great paragraph right there! Well said.

 

[DaWizard]

@The_JV maybe reread the OP to see how I defined interaction. In this definition recieving a shot is the only interaction.

Either way, I was thinking about interaction being a factor of importance to make a sport fun or interesting to watch. Wouldn't you want the best of the best see interacting a lot? As it would give them the opportunity to display their greatness a lot in the match?

But allthough it is of some importance, it's not hugely important. World cup finales in soccer (lots and lots of interaction by the best players) can be rather boring to watch.

 

[The_JV]

@The_JV maybe reread the OP to see how I defined interaction. In this definition recieving a shot is the only interaction.

I read it and understand. I disagree with your definition.

 

[DaWizard]

I read it and understand. I disagree with your definition.

Could you give your definition? I reread your posts, but I can't really see how you would define it.