PDA

View Full Version : 9-ball or 10-ball, which is more entertaining to you?


Celtic
04-11-2005, 06:19 AM
Trying a poll to see what this board full of players would rather watch the pro's play. Between 9-ball and 10-ball which would you rather watch? 9-ball with its many runouts and few safeties? Or 10-ball with less runouts and more safeties?

Black-Balled
04-11-2005, 06:37 AM
You should also put in a choice for no difference. I am 60/40 in favor of 10b, but really don't care. Just want a pool channel on my damn inhome comcast ripoff system.

Celtic
04-11-2005, 06:51 AM
I dont really want a fence to sit on, if you are 60/40 in one direction then you are leaning to one prefference which is the whole point. We all like any pool we can get but this is a question of IF you had a choice on the game you get to watch.

Billy_Bob
04-11-2005, 07:20 AM
Maybe the question should be: What is it about snooker which draws big ratings on TV in the U.K. - and big sponsors - and big money for the players?

If you ask me, snooker is made for TV. It is easy to see the difference between the red balls and the colored balls on TV. Your average viewer can quickly learn that the player needs to hit a red, then a colored.

With 9-ball, I can't easily tell which ball is which on TV.

Maybe it is something as simple as that?

FYI - In hollywood, they have special TV "marketing research" theatres. Each seat in the theatre has an electronic "viewer feedback" dial. You watch something on the screen and if you like what you are currently viewing, you turn the dial one way. If you don't like it, you turn the dial the other way. Or turn the dial to the middle if no opinion.

So they can play back the movie or whatever after the audience has watched it. Then if there are sections where most people disliked what they saw, cut those portions out. If there are sections where most people liked what they were viewing - then add more of that content. You wind up with something most people like.

AceHigh
04-11-2005, 08:25 AM
Maybe the question should be: What is it about snooker which draws big ratings on TV in the U.K. - and big sponsors - and big money for the players?

If you ask me, snooker is made for TV. It is easy to see the difference between the red balls and the colored balls on TV. Your average viewer can quickly learn that the player needs to hit a red, then a colored.

With 9-ball, I can't easily tell which ball is which on TV.

Maybe it is something as simple as that?

FYI - In hollywood, they have special TV "marketing research" theatres. Each seat in the theatre has an electronic "viewer feedback" dial. You watch something on the screen and if you like what you are currently viewing, you turn the dial one way. If you don't like it, you turn the dial the other way. Or turn the dial to the middle if no opinion.

So they can play back the movie or whatever after the audience has watched it. Then if there are sections where most people disliked what they saw, cut those portions out. If there are sections where most people liked what they were viewing - then add more of that content. You wind up with something most people like.

If you can't tell which ball is which in 9ball, then maybe you should get your eyes checked. If somebody can't tell which ball is which, that isn't enough reason for people not to watch. And even if they couldn't tell, commentators use the telestrator thing to show each ball before every single shot.

bobroberts
04-11-2005, 08:32 AM
You should also put in a choice for no difference. I am 60/40 in favor of 10b, but really don't care. Just want a pool channel on my damn inhome comcast ripoff system.
Hey switch to the dish,better channels less expensive and you don't feel like Comcast is in your back pocket.Better video and sound.
I vote for 10 B.

mjantti
04-11-2005, 08:43 AM
If you ask me, snooker is made for TV. It is easy to see the difference between the red balls and the colored balls on TV. Your average viewer can quickly learn that the player needs to hit a red, then a colored.


Actually, this was one of the main reasons why the major networks in UK started broadcasting snooker. The increase in popularity of color tv's in 60's and 70's made them come up with a program which involved the use of colors. And snooker was perfect ! Or, should I say the snooker on tv made many viewers change their tv sets to color...

OldHasBeen
04-11-2005, 08:50 AM
IMO - 10-Ball was invented for ring games back in the '70's because players with great breaks like Billy Johnson were too dominating.
Until Joe 6-pack is running 4 & 5 racks consistently - Why the need for 10-Ball?
JMO

TY & GL

Rackin_Zack
04-11-2005, 09:13 AM
Until Joe 6-pack is running 4 & 5 racks consistently - Why the need for 10-Ball?
JMO

TY & GL

I think he should chage his nickname if he can't run a six-pack! :D

Mike Templeton
04-11-2005, 09:18 AM
I think he should chage his nickname if he can't run a six-pack! :D
Maybe he can drink a 6-pack and run a 3-pack :D

Big Business
04-11-2005, 09:28 AM
10 ball in my opinion is a bit more of a level playing field due to the break not being so consistant that an exceptional player wins more often. For some reaon in nine ball I can get to 9-12 in a tourney, maybe 7-8th but the break is the factor that keeps our local top guns firing on all cylinders and on top. However in ten ball I can almost get to the top. I am not a fan of 7 ball so much but the idea of no safeties is ineresting. I am an offensive player however. Just my 2 cents.

Sean

thecardman
04-11-2005, 12:05 PM
Maybe the question should be: What is it about snooker which draws big ratings on TV in the U.K. - and big sponsors - and big money for the players?

All the posts above relating to what Billy_Bob said are correct. The BBC were launching BBC2, their second channel which was primarily going to be broadcast in colour. To promote this, and to test colour TV broadcast, the BBC came along with "Pot Black" - the single frame invitational snooker tournament that lasted for over 20-odd years! It is what got me interested in the cue sports when I was a kid.

Why does snooker get so much money? Two words - Barry and Hearn. Simple as that. He made the snooker players become household names in the UK thanks to sponsorships, promotions and such like. Players were popping up on chat shows, playing trickshots or just sitting talking with the host. From that, and a lot of work in the background, tournament prize money started to grow until it reached the level we are at today.

To give you an example, when Cliff Thorburn made his 147 break in the 1983 World Championships, he got a total of £17,000 (approx $30,000 at today's exchange rate) for the Maximum, the High Break Prize and the award for the Championship record break. Jump to 1997 and Ronnie O'Sullivan's magical 5-minute maximum. He got £147,000 (around $265,000) for the maximum alone! I can't remember what he got for the highest break prize. Another instance was when Jimmy White made his 147 but lost in the final. He ended up with more prizemoney than that year's winner.

Another example is the first prize - in 1972, when Alex Higgins won his first World Title, he won £800 (around $1,400) and £100 of that was his entry fee! At the start of May, the World Champion will walk away with £250,000 (over $400,000).

I've said this in the past - give it time. It seems to me that prize money in pool will grow and grow. Who knows what sort of prize money the World Champion will be walking away with in 10 or 15 years time.

Best wishes

thecardman
:)
www.scottish9ball.com (http://www.scottish9ball.com)

vapoolplayer
04-11-2005, 01:49 PM
take into account that MOST of us here are POOL PLAYERS.............and MOST of the t.v. audience are NOT POOL PLAYERS.

they play pool but they are not pool players, if you catch my drift.

i for one prefer 10 ball, but this is not the case with the average joe, who has never even heard of 10 ball.

also take into account that snooker, is a relatively fast game when pro snooker players play. ronnie made his 147 in like 5 minutes...........thats only twice as long as the average 9 ball rack.

to be successful on T.V. you have to be fast so you won't bore people, and you have to have some excitement (i.e. luck.)

right now at this very moment, i don't think that the average joe is ready for 10 ball.

give it a few years, after the average person understands pool, and it becomes more of a mainstream game/sport. then and only then, can you make the game harder, as it has a large enough fan base, with enough of them having a good understanding of the game to appreciate the higher degree of difficulty......................which right now, pool does not have.

VAP

Celtic
04-12-2005, 09:02 AM
Bump.

Sticky for a while to get a good sample for the poll would be sweet Mike if possible...

catscradle
04-12-2005, 10:43 AM
I think he should chage his nickname if he can't run a six-pack! :D

Yuk-yuk-yuk.

sniper
04-12-2005, 01:58 PM
I prefer ten ball personally, it's more like a chess match with more safeties instead of running out all the time.

thecardman
04-12-2005, 03:19 PM
take into account that MOST of us here are POOL PLAYERS.............and MOST of the t.v. audience are NOT POOL PLAYERS.

they play pool but they are not pool players, if you catch my drift.

I know exactly what you mean.

Thing is, tho that here in the UK, most people who watch snooker aren't snooker players. They just enjoy watching the game for what it is.

also take into account that snooker, is a relatively fast game when pro snooker players play. ronnie made his 147 in like 5 minutes...........thats only twice as long as the average 9 ball rack.

Snooker? Fast? Nah! O'Sullivan plays that quickly because he can. Simple as that. An average frame of snooker can last upwards of 15 to 20 minutes. Most times more. Why else do you think the World Snooker Championship Final lasts 2 whole days. And that's a race to 18 frames.

I suppose that it is purely a case of different cultures. For you guys in the States (to my mind) everything has to go at 100mph. American Football, Basketball and the WPBA have shotclocks of one form or another (I HATE THAT WPBA SHOTCLOCK!). Here in the UK, people can easily get wrapped up in a frame of snooker that can last anything up to an hour or more - especially when it is getting close to the end of a tournament. We sometimes find safety battles as enthralling and exciting as the likes of O'Sullivan or White or Williams pocketing balls at full flow.

Best wishes

thecardman
:)
www.scottish9ball.com (http://www.scottish9ball.com)

vapoolplayer
04-12-2005, 03:24 PM
I know exactly what you mean.

Thing is, tho that here in the UK, most people who watch snooker aren't snooker players. They just enjoy watching the game for what it is.



Snooker? Fast? Nah! O'Sullivan plays that quickly because he can. Simple as that. An average frame of snooker can last upwards of 15 to 20 minutes. Most times more. Why else do you think the World Snooker Championship Final lasts 2 whole days. And that's a race to 18 frames.

I suppose that it is purely a case of different cultures. For you guys in the States (to my mind) everything has to go at 100mph. American Football, Basketball and the WPBA have shotclocks of one form or another (I HATE THAT WPBA SHOTCLOCK!). Here in the UK, people can easily get wrapped up in a frame of snooker that can last anything up to an hour or more - especially when it is getting close to the end of a tournament. We sometimes find safety battles as enthralling and exciting as the likes of O'Sullivan or White or Williams pocketing balls at full flow.

Best wishes

thecardman
:)
www.scottish9ball.com (http://www.scottish9ball.com)

i think the difference is that the audience in the UK may not play snooker seriously BUT they all UNDERSTAND it and APPRECIATE it.

thats not the case in the US...........people don't appreciate the game yet. you have to get them to appreciate pool, before you switch to 10 ball.


and thanks for correcting me on the snooker, i assumed that most of the pro players there played relatively fast.......not as fast as ronnie, but i figured fast anyway.

thanks

VAP

sjm
04-12-2005, 04:28 PM
I've watched loads of snooker when I've been in England. One thing I really like is the overhead view of the table, which really makes it easy to identify all the balls and to appreciate the lay of the table. Snooker is really simple to follow.

As importantly, the pub is the social focal point of many a small town or village in the UK, and every pub has a snooker table, so the average Joe has seen it played often and already knows the game. Eight ball enjoys some of the same advantages in America, but no other pool game does.

Barry Hearn leveraged the fact that people in the UK were so familiar with the game, and mandated proper etiquette, demeanor, dress code, and yes, hairstyles, and the result was a well-known, respectable game.

Still, let's not overlook that the abrupt rise of snooker took place in a period when few in the UK had cable TV. That means the typical TV viewer had about five choices. When snooker was on the BBC, it was one of just five viewing choices, giving it an advantage telelvised pool will never know.

jjinfla
04-12-2005, 05:52 PM
I never heard of 10 ball until a couple months ago. Never watched a game being played. Next weekend, the 23rd I will most likely go to Capone's and watch the Florida Pro Tour where they will be playing 10 ball for the first time.

Jake

Celtic
04-12-2005, 05:57 PM
I have a problem with the arguement that the general public need a fast paced high offense game. Looking at the sports that are big in America and even internationally I just dont see it. Soccer is the biggest spectator sport in the world, it is sure as heck not a game high in offense though, scores like 2-1, 2-0. 3-1 abound. The NFL, a very interesting yet massively complex game, it is not a hugely offensive game, it can on occasion have high scores but on any given week in the NFL a low score of 10-7 or so is common. Hockey, same thing, it can be reasonably high scoring, but most of the time is spent in the middle of the ice and a goal is the occasional surprise and excitement behind the chess match that is most of the game.

Heck curling is a game on the rise, it is seeing massive amounts of increase in its viewership and popularity. It is by no means a fast paced game or high on offense, it excels because of the strategy and the occasional offensive shot that is rare enough as to excite the crowd.

I think that is the biggest problem with 9-ball really. The offense, the runout is so easy for the top players that there are simply far too many of them and therefore they no longer become the exciting rarity that people want to see but instead become a non-climactic occurance with little to no excitement. I know when I see a runout on TV I dont go WOW, I go YAWN. I think the public is no different. Joe public might be all interested for a match or two, but when he sees that the game is simply constant runouts it really removes alot of the excitement because there is no surprise or excitement in routine. If the runout is the pinnicle of pool to strive for then it should also be hard and sufficiently rare so as to be exciting when it happens.

ATM 9-ball is not exciting because of runouts, even the announcers dont hype the runouts. You know whats exciting? Jump Shots, Kick Shots, Combinations, anything that is not the norm, the things that are harder that we see oh so rarely in 9-ball. You know what would really make the general public get up and cheer? Efren's shot heard around the world against Earl, a 3 rail kick made into a corner pocket at hill hill leading to a runout. It is rare 9-ball gets such an interesting final game because normally the person breaking with a good break simply runs out the table and never gets into trouble or builds any suspense. Changing the game up to ten ball would give us more of these opportunities for the real excitement, for pool players and Joe Public alike.

mnorwood
04-12-2005, 05:57 PM
Like some of the other postings on the subject I like 10 ball because the break is not as great a factor as in 9 ball. At least that's the way I see it.

Interest in televised pool is hampered by the following reasons:
1. Ineffective organization and promotion of the professional tours.
2. Lack of big corporate sponsorship. A product of reason one.
3. The growing interest of Texas Holdem. "A fun game when I am feeling lazy."
4. Pool players being torn between committing to pool and playing golf.

AceHigh
04-12-2005, 06:22 PM
I have a problem with the arguement that the general public need a fast paced high offense game. Looking at the sports that are big in America and even internationally I just dont see it. Soccer is the biggest spectator sport in the world, it is sure as heck not a game high in offense though, scores like 2-1, 2-0. 3-1 abound. The NFL, a very interesting yet massively complex game, it is not a hugely offensive game, it can on occasion have high scores but on any given week in the NFL a low score of 10-7 or so is common. Hockey, same thing, it can be reasonably high scoring, but most of the time is spent in the middle of the ice and a goal is the occasional surprise and excitement behind the chess match that is most of the game.

Heck curling is a game on the rise, it is seeing massive amounts of increase in its viewership and popularity. It is by no means a fast paced game or high on offense, it excels because of the strategy and the occasional offensive shot that is rare enough as to excite the crowd.

I think that is the biggest problem with 9-ball really. The offense, the runout is so easy for the top players that there are simply far too many of them and therefore they no longer become the exciting rarity that people want to see but instead become a non-climactic occurance with little to no excitement. I know when I see a runout on TV I dont go WOW, I go YAWN. I think the public is no different. Joe public might be all interested for a match or two, but when he sees that the game is simply constant runouts it really removes alot of the excitement because there is no surprise or excitement in routine. If the runout is the pinnicle of pool to strive for then it should also be hard and sufficiently rare so as to be exciting when it happens.

ATM 9-ball is not exciting because of runouts, even the announcers dont hype the runouts. You know whats exciting? Jump Shots, Kick Shots, Combinations, anything that is not the norm, the things that are harder that we see oh so rarely in 9-ball. You know what would really make the general public get up and cheer? Efren's shot heard around the world against Earl, a 3 rail kick made into a corner pocket at hill hill leading to a runout. It is rare 9-ball gets such an interesting final game because normally the person breaking with a good break simply runs out the table and never gets into trouble or builds any suspense. Changing the game up to ten ball would give us more of these opportunities for the real excitement, for pool players and Joe Public alike.

You bring up the NFL. Obviously you have never watched the NFL, or you would know that the score of the game does not dictate how intense the game is.

sjm
04-12-2005, 06:24 PM
ATM 9-ball is not exciting because of runouts, even the announcers dont hype the runouts. You know whats exciting? Jump Shots, Kick Shots, Combinations, anything that is not the norm, the things that are harder that we see oh so rarely in 9-ball. You know what would really make the general public get up and cheer? Efren's shot heard around the world against Earl, a 3 rail kick made into a corner pocket at hill hill leading to a runout. It is rare 9-ball gets such an interesting final game because normally the person breaking with a good break simply runs out the table and never gets into trouble or builds any suspense. Changing the game up to ten ball would give us more of these opportunities for the real excitement, for pool players and Joe Public alike.

A creative, insightful, and well-judged post, Celtic. We do appreciate the not-so-routine aspects of the game, and the runout has become a bit montonous.

Then again, Celtic, greatly tighten up those pockets and the runout will become really special again. The loose equipment in use today at pro level has surely hurt nineball.

Widen a golf hole by an inch and everyone becomes a great putter. We have widened the pocket on a pool table similarly and now everyone's a great pocketer. Still, who are we fooling? Pros should play in conditions that befit professional skills. When they don't, it cheapens the product called pro pool.

Snooker fans appreciate it when top players make ball after ball because they know it's very difficult. Pool fans are less inclined to appreciate a runout in pool because they know it isn't very difficult.

beetle
04-12-2005, 06:53 PM
It is rare 9-ball gets such an interesting final game because normally the person breaking with a good break simply runs out the table and never gets into trouble or builds any suspense. Changing the game up to ten ball would give us more of these opportunities for the real excitement, for pool players and Joe Public alike.

(replying to MJ) I think you may overestimate how interesting 9-ball is on TV, it bores me and most other pool players to tears, and we are the actual fans.

Since 10-ball has made three separate threads, I'll chime in. I really think Celtic is overstating the difference between the two games. Finding one "boring" and the other exciting is akin to loving Coca-cola but hating Pepsi. The ingredients are nearly identical, with the exception of the break and run percentages, perhaps. Still, if a touring pro has an open shot on the low ball in 10-ball, he/she is almost as likely to run-out as in 9-ball. Maybe not 30% of the time as in 9-ball, but probably at least 25% of the games. To me, that is a negligible basis over which to like one and not the other. Given the reasons M. Janis stated for using 9 ball, it seems reasonable to stick with that one in order to keep the tournament races longer and meet potential tv schedules better. As long they get on TV, I will watch both eagerly.

Celtic
04-12-2005, 08:00 PM
Snooker fans appreciate it when top players make ball after ball because they know it's very difficult. Pool fans are less inclined to appreciate a runout in pool because they know it isn't very difficult.

This is the problem with pool though. Tables in the local pool hall are loose because the room owners want the local players to enjoy their time at the table and run some balls and not be frusterated by a decent shot being spat out by a tight table. Making the tables tighter on a 9-ball tournament is a great thing except does Joe Public 9-ball fan understand that the table the pro's are playing on is different then the one they just shot at 2 hours ago? The pro's missing shots due to tables comparitively really tight could be missed by the public and simply be written off as the pro's not being that good.

In snooker generally any 6 X 12 snooker table in England or Canada is as tough as the ones the pro's play on and so the people know how hard it is. In golf it is easy to explain that the pins are placed back 100 yards more then normal and the palyer is playing on a 450 yard par 4 hole, that is understandably difficult to the viewer. Explaining that the pocket of the table on TV is tigher then normal tables in normal pool halls though? That is tricky. I would love if ALL tables in ALL pool halls were tighened and made the exact same and then the pro's would be playing on equal equippment to the normal players in the halls and yet the equippment is tougher, it just wont happen though because room owners want fast games and easy tables where a couple hacks can play without just getting frusterated.

I could just see the local uninformed viewer watching pro pool on TV going "man these guys suck, I ran 3 tables out in an hour of play last night at the pool hall and these guys are just chopping it up missing pots like crazy". A few of us would know better and know the tables would be different, but most people would think they were the same and trying to tell people they are 0.5 inch smaller pockets is Greek to most people.

Celtic
04-12-2005, 08:01 PM
You bring up the NFL. Obviously you have never watched the NFL, or you would know that the score of the game does not dictate how intense the game is.

Thanks for proving my point man. We dont need constant runouts and offense to have a intense battle on the table.

sjm
04-12-2005, 08:08 PM
The pro's missing shots due to tables comparitively really tight could be missed by the public and simply be written off as the pro's not being that good......I could just see the local uninformed viewer watching pro pool on TV going "man these guys suck, I ran 3 tables out in an hour of play last night at the pool hall and these guys are just chopping it up missing pots like crazy".

A reasonable observation, Celtic, but it's all about education. Golf fans, even the ones that can't play a lick or don't play at all, understand that par means more at Pebble Beach under pro conditions than it does on the course three miles from home. The difficulty of the conditions is mentioned often on golf telecasts, and maybe it would be even more necessary on pool telecasts.

Still, giving the pro pool players a test that befits their skill level is where I'd like our sport to go.

Renegade
04-12-2005, 11:45 PM
aah, pardon my ignorance, but...what's the difference between 7-, 9-, and 10-ball (besides the obvious, of course, which is the number of balls on the table) anyway?

vapoolplayer
04-13-2005, 02:00 AM
aah, pardon my ignorance, but...what's the difference between 7-, 9-, and 10-ball (besides the obvious, of course, which is the number of balls on the table) anyway?

well 7 ball has the modified rules. only 1 safe per rack per player. this is the only time you can miss a ball. any other time if you miss, the other player gets ball in hand.

9 ball........well i'm sure you know

10 ball........with just one little ball you add an entire world of difference. the rack is much harder to consistently make a ball(at least as consistent as 9 ball) and because of the rack, the balls tend to cluster more. making it harder to run out, thus more safeties, breakouts, combos..........etc.........its a far more technical game than 9 ball..........just by adding a ball.

VAP

lewdo26
04-13-2005, 08:09 AM
Thanks for proving my point man. We dont need constant runouts and offense to have a intense battle on the table.
I *totally* agree. The crowd that says runouts and power shots are all Joe Public wants to see are making assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever. The only concrete evidence that we have is that pool has *decreased* in popularity as pockets got wider, and highlights began showing jump and breakshots almost exclusively.

Furthermore, I'd say that what Joe Public wants is wholy arbitrary. The American TV viewing public is just about the most fickle invention in the history of human societies. Turn to ESPN and you'll see men on steroids carrying stones and lifting motor bikes, hotdog eating contests, and a bunch of other shit that couldn't even be remotely construed as a legitimate sport.

THAT'S WHY I feel tweaking pro pool with Joe Public in mind is very dangerous. I say, create the conditions in pool that are the optimal test of skills. It may seem boring, but so is golf, tennis, and poker. The difference between those and pool is that golf and poker are played for *big money*. And that I think is undisputable. Joe Public wants to see money, and loads of it. In golf the athletes are very nicely dressed and presentable --- they get their viewership. In poker you get all these decadent, sickly insomniacs of questionable moral values --- they get their viewership. All because the American TV viewing public loves to fantasize about big money. That vicarious fascination with money is what keeps half the american population (that doesn't have enough of it) going, really.

How does pool secure big money? I do not have the answer, of course. But I do think it has nothing to do with the size of the pockets or whether you add a ball to a game of rotation. Neither Joe Public nor Joe Sponsor & Co. know the difference. If anything, the only recognizeable aspect of pocket billiards for them is 8 ball. Pool could be popular under almost any conditions. So long as the irrational tide of the market lends its favors.

The attempt to lure money into pro pool is a lofty one given the beauty of the game. But it's important to understand that pool is the norm and not the exception. Ping Pong, gymnastics, and a million other sports are also not getting it.

My last point: I think the comparison between men's pro pool and either the WPBA or snooker is unfair. In WPBA's case, the fact that you are seeing women playing pool (and well) has more to do with it than the game itself. Men will never be as attractive to Joe Public as women are. In the case of snooker, you're talking about a very different public. And, at the risk of pissing people off, a more sophisticated one.

Celtic
04-13-2005, 05:44 PM
Thats it in a nutshell Lewdo. I wrote exactly what it would take to make pool succeed and become hugely popular here.

http://www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=4191

"I think the major cause of pool being a dud on TV is the money. People who tune into a sport on TV want to see something bigger then themselves, they want to see stars that are loaded with talent and money and are playing for huge stakes. They want these people to be famous and have that star quality that makes people tune into the Oscars just to watch people walk down the red carpet. This is not going to happen when you have the finals of a 160 player tournament going and you have 2 people playing who are lucky to make 100K a year playing for about a 15k difference of $30,000 to the winner or $15,000 to the loser. A viewer sees that and thinks "wow, I could not even buy that car I want if I won that tournament, what is the point?"

On the other hand look at golf. You have a sport where a bunch of multi millionaires are all out there hitting balls around a course (as predictable and slow as pool ever was) and they are playing for a payday of over $1,000,000 for first place. The viewer instead sees this and says "Wow, not only could I buy that car I want, I could buy a house as well, my life would be set! What a dream it would be to be able to do that and play pro golf"

It takes money to make money is a popular slogan, it has merit here though. In order for pool to advance it is going to need to impress the audiance with loads of cash and the pressence of stars. It is going to need the sport to look bigger then the lives of the people who tune in to watch it. That is the draw poker has. Joe who works a 9-5 job for 40k a year gets home and he flicks on the TV and he sees the World Series of Poker. He watches a bunch of people sitting at a table betting sums of money that make his yearly wage look like chump change and some guy winning millions of dollars, and for what, playing poker? This is a dream to Joe, he wishes his life could be so exciting and watching poker on TV is an escape for him where he can dream. When he watches pool on the other hand he sees some guy working his nuts off beating 159 other players in a tournament in order to make $30,000 in the biggest tournament in the USA, it looks alot like work to Joe.

Take a pool tournament and put it on TV, have a larger then life setting (a casino floor, or a stadium like the Worlds has, but put it in Vegas cause Vegas sells. When you are opening the show pan down the strip showing the scene in Vegas, the lights, the people milling around, ect... Then show the larger then life casino of the tournament, lets say the Luxor, a shot of the huge pyramid, the large light shooting out the top, the huge sphinx. Now inside the casino we go, briefly seeing the floor and such and then a shot of 2 hot tall show girls at a door who each open one door with big smiles and little clothes, and inside the doors we see the tables. Have show girls sitting near the players who do nothing more then pour the water for the players and such, making the players look important. In no way should the players rack their own balls or their opponent, this can be done by a ref dressed in some fancy tux type thing or if you get Michaella Tab maybe we could squeeze her into one of those show girl outfits? =). The key is to make the players look larger then life, they should be shown as kings and this is their castle. Have the winner winning a million dollars and then after a elaborate scene of getting the cash (not a check, I mean huge wads of hundred dollar bills in a suitcase all stacked up, the viewer will orgasm at the thought and sight of it) and then the winner closes up the suitcase and with 2 show girls, one on each arm walks casually with his head held high into the casino, as the king of his domain. Show over, end credits, leave the viewer wishing he was so lucky as to be a pro pool player. Screw poker."

Rackin_Zack
04-13-2005, 10:07 PM
Furthermore, I'd say that what Joe Public wants is wholy arbitrary. The American TV viewing public is just about the most fickle invention in the history of human societies. Turn to ESPN and you'll see men on steroids carrying stones and lifting motor bikes, hotdog eating contests, and a bunch of other shit that couldn't even be remotely construed as a legitimate sport.

Hey, you leave the strongman competitions alone! Those are awesome.

lewdo26
04-14-2005, 07:36 AM
Thats it in a nutshell Lewdo. I wrote exactly what it would take to make pool succeed and become hugely popular here.

http://www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=4191

Celtic, although such Hollywoodian overproduction would annoy the hell out of me, and it would no longer be about the game, and I wouldn't go to tournaments, you're right in the sense that the kind of thing you've described is what makes the american public tick.

The question still remains: How do you get to that point *from here*?

My other question is (and, again I'm afraid I may be stepping on a few toes): Why not just pass the torch to the Asian countries that appear to love the game in and of itself?

APA9
04-14-2005, 09:51 AM
The average non-pool-player won't see much of a difference between the two games, but 10-ball is a better game for the players. It solves the wing-ball problem. Many pros obviously see it as a problem which is why we've seen weird things like them racking the 9-ball on the spot. It also adds to the difficulty to the game. That extra ball comes into play more than some people might think. Because 10-ball will appear no different from 9-ball to the average viewer, yet will be a better game for the players, I think that 10-ball should be the standard in tournament play. Unless, of course, someone came up with some other game that would be better for spectators and still maintain a comparable degree of difficulty.

daveneal
04-16-2005, 03:53 AM
What is 10-ball. I'm from the UK and have never heard of it?

LastTwo
04-16-2005, 04:19 AM
I'm willing to bet that if they started showing 8-ball instead of 9-ball, ratings would increase a notable percentage by people who play the game casually. When I first started playing pool, I remember being at a poolhall and they were showing a 9-ball game on TV, and I overheard a few people saying that they would rather see the pros play 8-ball. At the time, I felt the same way. The reason why is because I only played 8-ball back then, and so did those guys who were talking, and so do the vast majority of the people who play the game casually. 9-ball is usually played by people who are taking up pool as a hobby, and generally for people who take the game a bit more serious. It doesn't appeal to most non-pool players because it is too complicated, being that they don't understand how to play position. In 8-ball, often you have many shot options, and thus the opportunity for someone who doesn't play good to make more balls. The casual-playing public wants to see a game that they play, not some game with less balls, and even if you make more balls than your opponent you can still lose.

Me personally, I would love to see 10-ball or 15-ball Rotation over anything else. I think 10-ball should COMPLETELY replace 9-ball.

JrockJustin
04-17-2005, 11:07 PM
I apologize, don't really know the game-play for 10-ball...Can anyone give me a quick rundown so I can make a decision between 9-ball or 10-ball? Any info would greatly be appreciated!

I am also lost on the ring-game thing. I could look it up on the internet I am sure but I want to build my posts up...lol

Renegade
04-18-2005, 01:15 AM
well 7 ball has the modified rules. only 1 safe per rack per player. this is the only time you can miss a ball. any other time if you miss, the other player gets ball in hand.

9 ball........well i'm sure you know

10 ball........with just one little ball you add an entire world of difference. the rack is much harder to consistently make a ball(at least as consistent as 9 ball) and because of the rack, the balls tend to cluster more. making it harder to run out, thus more safeties, breakouts, combos..........etc.........its a far more technical game than 9 ball..........just by adding a ball.

VAP

THANKS for the explanation, vapoolplayer. so they basically have the same rules: shoot the lowest ball on the table, person who pockets the 7, 9, or 10 ball, wins, etc. etc. I agree that "making it harder to run out, thus more safeties, breakouts, combos" contributes to making the game more interesting. but if this were so, then the most popular game should be rotation since there are more balls, more incentives for making spectacular combination shots, more safeties, more planning and fantastic shotmaking (i heard this is the game most filipinos prefer to play and cut their teeth on). how come rotation isn't as well-known or accepted? has there ever been a world rotation championship?

but let me try to answer my own question: i'm guessing it's because the game would tend to take too long and thus bore audiences. but then again, snooker is a much longer game to play than rotation and it has none of the combos, jumps, banks, etc. that players can utilize to great advantage in rotation. so why don't we give rotation a try? maybe someone could sponsor (attention san miguel beer!) a rotation exhibition game between efren reyes and , well, whoever, maybe bustamante or pagulayan or archer, and we can see the reaction of the fans. what do you guys think?

(i think this should be in another thread.....)

Danny Harriman
04-30-2005, 11:14 AM
In trying to distinguish the difference between these to games and or as to why one is more favorable I would say that in my 12 years as a touring pro I would most definitely prefer to compete playing 10-ball. There are two very obvious reasons, in Ten Ball we find that there are no (wing balls) which makes alot less room for the players to constintly trying to cheat each other on the rack.This also eliminates the soft break which I think shows no talent and makes the game look reduntant and non-athletic. For many years I worked on my break and in 1994 I finished second to Mike Sigel, I remember the comentators were impressed and amused at my method of jumping up in the air after the break shot. In closing I think to make the game look more athletic is one of the key ingredients to marketing our game in a positive way.


P.S. Lets bring back the power break

yours truly Danny Harriman (The Springfield kid)

cheemagun
04-30-2005, 03:50 PM
i just want to make sure. even tho i been to ten ball tourneys never really read any rules... is it the exact same as nine ball ? what about like 3 safties in a row? what about fouls? do all balls stay down? ball in hand anywhere? you have to call the ten ball am i correct ?

jjinfla
05-01-2005, 05:24 AM
Don't have to call the 10 ball in the Seminole Florida Pro Tour but I think it would be a good idea to do so.

Jake

junior718
05-12-2005, 08:47 AM
i'd rather see 10ball with the old push out rules and ball in hand after 2 fouls.

Danny Harriman
05-29-2005, 04:01 PM
You mentioned how you think snooker is a more TV friendly to the eyes and 9-ball is a much more difficult game to film, but when you have the right resources rotation pool can be successfully produced, which is the case when Berry Hearns promotes an event. The players are interviewed so the people at home can feel like they have a favorite player (ie) personality profile. With ESPN filming each event our camera costs are minimal which lends itself to all of us at home seeing a dismal frame of balls and most people flipping through the channels at home are allways wondering why they play 9-ball. It's imperative that we get a personality profile from the player's, but to make the game easier to watch for the fans at home I suggest 14-1. A much more camera friendly game and no offense to the game of 9-ball but it is looked down upon by many average players as a luck game. So there is my reply to your post and for those people who think watching straight pool is boring your missing out, sure there is not alot of wild kick shots but I'm in favor of playing 14-1 under the rules that Earl Strickland has mentioned (total offense), in closing I recomend your watching how Berry Hearns films one of his Masconi Cup matches, with the acception to the amateur size pockets this event is a winner.
Sincerely, Danny Harriman

watchez
05-30-2005, 10:49 AM
You mentioned how you think snooker is a more TV friendly to the eyes and 9-ball is a much more difficult game to film, but when you have the right resources rotation pool can be successfully produced, which is the case when Berry Hearns promotes an event. The players are interviewed so the people at home can feel like they have a favorite player (ie) personality profile. With ESPN filming each event our camera costs are minimal which lends itself to all of us at home seeing a dismal frame of balls and most people flipping through the channels at home are allways wondering why they play 9-ball. It's imperative that we get a personality profile from the player's, but to make the game easier to watch for the fans at home I suggest 14-1. A much more camera friendly game and no offense to the game of 9-ball but it is looked down upon by many average players as a luck game. So there is my reply to your post and for those people who think watching straight pool is boring your missing out, sure there is not alot of wild kick shots but I'm in favor of playing 14-1 under the rules that Earl Strickland has mentioned (total offense), in closing I recomend your watching how Berry Hearns films one of his Masconi Cup matches, with the acception to the amateur size pockets this event is a winner.
Sincerely, Danny Harriman

Agreed Danny. I always wondered why in a pool match, if they are using a handheld camera the cameraman has to get right up on the table or if they are using a robot arm, it has to be so close also. Football games to put cameras on the field and baseball games have cameras far from the action but you still get great close ups of the action. A baseball is thrown at 95mph and the camera 100 feet away can show the seams on the ball in slow motion.

Jimmy M.
05-31-2005, 12:10 AM
Just to chime in, I'd rather play 10-ball. I have no idea what the general public would rather see though. I don't think they'd see a difference, but who knows?

Travis Bickle
06-02-2005, 10:13 PM
Only 10 ball I've watched pros play is a DVD I've got of Derby City 2003, the second ring game, won by Johnny Archer. If it were in that format, total offense with multiple players, that's great to watch. There were some unbelievable outs by Parica in that match, and fantastic pressure play by Archer to win it.

Like to see more of it ... but if it degenerates into protracted safety battles, maybe not. I mean, I like that stuff about as much as anyone, but when I think of how torturous it was to watch what I saw of Billy Palmer's DCC 1-hole win over Efren on the Web, a little goes a long way.

AceHigh
07-04-2005, 09:57 PM
In trying to distinguish the difference between these to games and or as to why one is more favorable I would say that in my 12 years as a touring pro I would most definitely prefer to compete playing 10-ball. There are two very obvious reasons, in Ten Ball we find that there are no (wing balls) which makes alot less room for the players to constintly trying to cheat each other on the rack.This also eliminates the soft break which I think shows no talent and makes the game look reduntant and non-athletic. For many years I worked on my break and in 1994 I finished second to Mike Sigel, I remember the comentators were impressed and amused at my method of jumping up in the air after the break shot. In closing I think to make the game look more athletic is one of the key ingredients to marketing our game in a positive way.


P.S. Lets bring back the power break

yours truly Danny Harriman (The Springfield kid)




are you calling Cory an unathletic pussy?

storke
07-05-2005, 12:11 PM
Hey switch to the dish,better channels less expensive and you don't feel like Comcast is in your back pocket.Better video and sound.
I vote for 10 B.
let me say this i have had both and think that comcast is better if only for the reason of local channels in hd. that being said i still would like to see a channel dedicated to pool. if they only tried it i know the ratings would be off the hook.

Cane
07-08-2005, 10:10 PM
I'd rather play 10-Ball and would rather watch 10-Ball. Less luck, more skill, IMO.

Bob