PDA

View Full Version : 14.1 no conflict..


The Renfro
09-09-2013, 12:08 AM
Run 14 balls and leave one on the table... break the balls open and continue to shoot regardless of pocketing the 15th ball... Removes the luck of getting a little less than perfect on your break ball... Just not sure if you get ball in hand behind the line if you get a bad roll on the break and scratch......

Chris

victorl
09-09-2013, 12:34 AM
Getting perfect on the break ball is art...

softshot
09-09-2013, 12:38 AM
.....'........

softshot
09-09-2013, 12:40 AM
Not worth it

The Renfro
09-09-2013, 01:47 AM
For the beige crayons in the box this is in response to http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=266298&page=1

Tony_in_MD
09-09-2013, 02:35 AM
Using these rules in straight pool I should be able to run my age, I still will have trouble running my IQ.

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

Straightpool_99
09-09-2013, 07:14 AM
Run 14 balls and leave one on the table... break the balls open and continue to shoot regardless of pocketing the 15th ball... Removes the luck of getting a little less than perfect on your break ball... Just not sure if you get ball in hand behind the line if you get a bad roll on the break and scratch......

Chris

Could be an ok way to learn straight pool for a newcomer to the game,
I guess. For more advanced players I don't really like the idea, but then again I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to straight pool. Getting perfect on the break ball is almost the entire "heart and soul" of the game, and one of the aspects that keep me interested after many years. Without the requirement that you must get nice position on the break ball, pattern play becomes a bit less important, and to me thats one of the most interesting aspects of straight pool.

If you want to learn straight pool, and you are a good shotmaker, but not good at getting positon on the break ball, you could have the option to get ball in hand behind the headstring if your angle is bad on the breakball. That gets rid of the safing on the full rack, which many players find boring (not me though). To me it's always exciting to see who gets the first shot after the safety battle. For a player of at least moderate skill, straight pool is a game of risk management, playing within your limits and patience, as well as shotmaking and reading the rack. If you smash the rack wide open every time, many of these aspects become much less important and it all becomes a game of staying in the middle of the table and shotmaking. That would be boring to me, but I realise that not everybody likes the kind of straight pool game that I like.

CreeDo
09-09-2013, 07:29 AM
There's a great No Conflict golf course (http://www.congoriver.com/) in my area,
they took a lot of the hassle and debate out of it by removing the opening drive and having
everyone just putt from the same starting position. It's actually a lot of fun!

bdorman
09-09-2013, 07:47 AM
There's a great No Conflict golf course (http://www.congoriver.com/) in my area,
they took a lot of the hassle and debate out of it by removing the opening drive and having
everyone just putt from the same starting position. It's actually a lot of fun!

Makes the game go quicker too. Don't they call that "Miniature Golf"?

Between two equally bad players (I'm in that category) I can see getting ball in hand on the break shot. You still have to pocket the ball and hit the rack but you get to see what it's like IF you'd gotten perfect position. But it seems that not having to pocket the break ball would just encourage what I've come to call Smash Ball.

elvicash
09-09-2013, 07:53 AM
Run 14 balls and leave one on the table... break the balls open and continue to shoot regardless of pocketing the 15th ball... Removes the luck of getting a little less than perfect on your break ball... Just not sure if you get ball in hand behind the line if you get a bad roll on the break and scratch......

Chris

I think the shape on the break ball is a lot of what 14.1 is about. Do not think that would take off as anything more than a practice game.

boogeyman
09-09-2013, 08:04 AM
I think the shape on the break ball is a lot of what 14.1 is about. Do not think that would take off as anything more than a practice game.

I say NO WAY!! Great idea for practice thought.

To paraphrase a few of the above quotes: getting position on the break ball in 14.1 is the heart and soul of the game. 14 balls made and 1 left over. I don't want to see this game changed! :eek:

LuckyStroke
09-09-2013, 08:14 AM
I say NO WAY!! Great idea for practice thought.

To paraphrase a few of the above quotes: getting position on the break ball in 14.1 is the heart and soul of the game. 14 balls made and 1 left over. I don't want to see this game changed! :eek:

Getting shape on the break ball starts immeadiatly after the break shot. IMO setting up for that and continuing the run after the break is the whole purpose of the game. In my high run of 32 (small I know) my biggest accomishment was shape on the break ball and then making it during the break shot, twice. IMO it's a pretty serious feat which makes this such a serious game

StraightPoolIU
09-09-2013, 08:21 AM
It would no longer be 14.1 and would destroy the best part of the game. If this thread is tounge in cheek then I guess nevermind.

Jude Rosenstock
09-09-2013, 08:30 AM
Any rule-set you use has to be tailored for a specific skill-range. If you're talking about beginner/intermediate players, I see nothing wrong with these rules. In fact, it'd probably be more enjoyable than standard 14.1. If you're talking about advanced/expert level players, no way. For professional-caliber players, it's arguable that the rules are already too one-sided. A game like this would routinely see runs in the 100s with high-runs exceeding 1,000.

sfleinen
09-09-2013, 08:36 AM
It would no longer be 14.1 and would destroy the best part of the game. If this thread is tounge in cheek then I guess nevermind.

I agree. The whole concept behind 14.1 is "patterns that wind down to position on the break ball." Throw that away, and now there are no patterns (other than one or two balls ahead to break up clusters) and it's essentially a "free for all" shooting contest. "Just shoot at a bunch of balls in any random fashion that you like."

Heck, this would legitimize the facepalm tactic of "9-ball straight pool" (where short-rack rotation players try their hand at 14.1, only to show the cue ball going all over the place in short-rack rotation style). The idea is not to handicap the game to correspond to the player; but rather the player learn how to play the game correctly in the first place.

I disagree with those that say this may be a good practice game. It's not. Why practice "shooting a bunch of balls" if you're never going to learn how to "get" the root concept of straight pool to begin with? Just so you can "boast" some high run number?

There's more to a high straight pool run number than "just a bunch of balls shot without a miss." Those that think so, are truly completely missing the point.

-Sean <-- looked at his calendar, noticed it's not April 1st, and hopes he wasn't "had."

AtLarge
09-09-2013, 01:16 PM
Run 14 balls and leave one on the table... break the balls open and continue to shoot regardless of pocketing the 15th ball... Removes the luck of getting a little less than perfect on your break ball... Just not sure if you get ball in hand behind the line if you get a bad roll on the break and scratch......

Chris

Good going, Chris; you have people responding as if you were serious.

But, actually, with what you suggest, there's no need to leave that last ball out before you rack. Just shoot all 15 in, re-rack, break them open and continue. Then, son of a gun, you'll have the game called "Continuous Pool" that preceded the invention of 14.1 Continuous in 1910!

sfleinen
09-09-2013, 02:12 PM
Good going, Chris; you have people responding as if you were serious.

But, actually, with what you suggest, there's no need to leave that last ball out before you rack. Just shoot all 15 in, re-rack, break them open and continue. Then, son of a gun, you'll have the game called "Continuous Pool" that preceded the invention of 14.1 Continuous in 1910!

Yep, I guess he got us! (I had a passing suspicion, hence my "not April 1st; hope I wasn't 'had'" comment.)

Anyway, it's interesting to see how 14.1 progressed -- first, it was smash all 15 open. Then, it was leave a ball out for a break ball, but the cue ball had to contact two rails after pocketing the break ball before contacting the rack. And finally, Jerome Keough's modification to remove the two-rail contact requirement for the cue ball to arrive at the game we play today.

-Sean

Cameron Smith
09-11-2013, 06:22 PM
Yep, I guess he got us! (I had a passing suspicion, hence my "not April 1st; hope I wasn't 'had'" comment.)

Anyway, it's interesting to see how 14.1 progressed -- first, it was smash all 15 open. Then, it was leave a ball out for a break ball, but the cue ball had to contact two rails after pocketing the break ball before contacting the rack. And finally, Jerome Keough's modification to remove the two-rail contact requirement for the cue ball to arrive at the game we play today.

-Sean

Was it a smash and run game initially? I've heard that before, but I remember reading a very old New York Times article that posted years ago, where Jerome Keogh suggests the rule update to what we now know as 14.1. If I remember rightly, he indicated such a change would allow for much longer runs which would set apart the top players and would be good for spectators. I inferred from this comment that they were playing safe breaks at the start of every rack. Here is the article I am referencing, but I can't open it as I guess I must have an account. Perhaps someone with an account can check?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...669D946196D6CF

I get the feeling that the big opening break originated with games like 9 ball and possible 8 ball. I'd love to know either way.

AtLarge
09-11-2013, 10:27 PM
Was it a smash and run game initially? I've heard that before, but I remember reading a very old New York Times article that posted years ago, where Jerome Keogh suggests the rule update to what we now know as 14.1. If I remember rightly, he indicated such a change would allow for much longer runs which would set apart the top players and would be good for spectators. I inferred from this comment that they were playing safe breaks at the start of every rack. Here is the article I am referencing, but I can't open it as I guess I must have an account. Perhaps someone with an account can check?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...669D946196D6CF

I get the feeling that the big opening break originated with games like 9 ball and possible 8 ball. I'd love to know either way.

I checked The Billiard Encyclopedia to see if it answered your question, but it does not say what happened after the 15th ball was pocketed and all the balls were re-racked. Nor do I have a Times account.

BeiberLvr
09-11-2013, 10:40 PM
I have a feeling the OP's joke would have gone over a little better if he didn't wait 18 months after the original "No Conflict Rules" thread.

pt109
09-11-2013, 10:43 PM
I wanted a shot at the world heavyweight boxing title.....
.....but nobody would agree to a 'no conflict' fight.:angry:

I coulda been a contendah!....:crying:

The Renfro
09-12-2013, 12:51 AM
I have a feeling the OP's joke would have gone over a little better if he didn't wait 18 months after the original "No Conflict Rules" thread.

beigeberlvr,

Paul's thread did not end 18 months ago...... he continues to force players to play no conflict and posts after every "successful" tournament ... I was merely pointing out that no conflict could be applied to other games... 14.1 to be exact since he touts John Schmidt as being a proponent.....

I am learning 14.1 atm and realized the break shots were even more important in this game than 9 or 10ball... It's quite maddening to get perfect and not get rewarded because the balls tied up......

Learning the break shots in this game is really no different than learning them in the other games... It requires effort... So if you want to remove the break skill from rotation games I see no reason not to remove it from straight pool.....

I argue with Pat Fleming at almost every tournament about the break shot... I can guarantee what I proposed would be heresy to him in 14.1 but he might consider Paul's idea simply because he never learned the 9-10ball breaks.. He still considers them a function of luck....

We just added realtime stats to the Accu-stats matches... and I am lobbying for more break stats.... Either we do the stats or Shane just ends up being luckier than Efren...

If Efren had owned a break he would be the emperor of China by now... But then again if Simonis and Diamond had not showed up Efren would be secretary of state for The grand Emperor Earl..........

Chris

Pushout
09-12-2013, 07:06 AM
beigeberlvr,

Paul's thread did not end 18 months ago...... he continues to force players to play no conflict and posts after every "successful" tournament ...



How does he "force" players to play no conflict? Nobody has to play in his tournaments and from what I've heard he does well with them. looking at it that way, I'm "forced" to play by the stupid "ball in hand anywhere" rules any time I play in a 9 ball tournament. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you should make that kind of statement.

Cameron Smith
09-12-2013, 06:19 PM
I checked The Billiard Encyclopedia to see if it answered your question, but it does not say what happened after the 15th ball was pocketed and all the balls were re-racked. Nor do I have a Times account.

Thanks anyway! I'm tempted to get account to find out. I feel fairly confident that it was a safe break every rack, but I don't have any solid evidence. Perhaps I'll post a thread over in the 14.1 forum.