PDA

View Full Version : A point about those 100 and 200 ball runs!


Snapshot9
09-19-2007, 11:09 AM
I am old school, and back in the days, when someone had a big run in Straight Pool, it mattered whether it was from the break or not. That means from the 1st shot. That means you had to make a ball off the first break and then run balls.

Someone that ran a 100+ 'off the break' was held in higher esteem than just someone that had run a 100+, otherwise it is like having a running start before the run if the rack was broke up already.

How many starting break shots do you know that you can make a ball?

Another little thing, in the old days, playing the ghost was done with NO
ball in hand after break, and it was really something if you could beat the ghost back then.

Me, I am for keeping the 'difficulty' in Pool.......why, because it separates the men from the boys, the real players from the wannabees.

Your thoughts?

Irish634
09-19-2007, 11:23 AM
Right, wrong, or indifferent, I look at it kind of like golf: It's not how the shots looked that get there, it's how many shots you took that counts.

What I mean is in the end: The guy that hits Driver --> PW then 2 putts has the exact same score as the guy that hits 7-iron --> 7-iron --> PW --> 1 putt.

Blackjack
09-19-2007, 11:27 AM
The other day I tried to run a hundred balls (not from the break) and it was hard as hell. I think any triple digit run is an accomplishment. My first 100+ run started because of a safety error by my opponent. I will never forget how proud I was afterwards - I had run 117 balls. I think it goes back to the old question - not how, but how many.

I get what you're saying though. I usually start out by tossing 14 on the table and manufacturing a break ball from that scatter. As I said earlier this year, I don't count the first rack of 14 that I run - because I am just trying to get a good break ball, get a feel for the cloth and how the balls are moving. Others have argued that my high run this year of 141 is actually a 155 - but I have always practiced straight pool like this - and to me, it's a 141.

:)

As far as the ghost, I usually do not take ball in hand - unless it's 12 ball.

Bob Jewett
09-19-2007, 12:02 PM
I am old school, and back in the days, when someone had a big run in Straight Pool, it mattered whether it was from the break or not. That means from the 1st shot. That means you had to make a ball off the first break and then run balls.

Someone that ran a 100+ 'off the break' was held in higher esteem than just someone that had run a 100+, otherwise it is like having a running start before the run if the rack was broke up already. ... Your thoughts?
I guess I would look at it a lot differently. I think that no top player playing a serious game would ever play a shot out of the rack rather than play safe on the first shot of the game. I have never seen it done in any serious tournament. If someone did try it, the other players would have thought of him as a goof-ball or a freak. I have heard that Mosconi did it under some circumstances, but I doubt that he ever did it in a world championship match.

That's not to say that it's always the wrong shot. In an intramural tournament in college, my doubles partner banked the corner ball back from the full rack three times in a game to 75. Our opponents probably couldn't have won anyway, but this move devastated them. I think my partner may also have figured that they were likely to miss after two shots and then I'd shoot. The table had soft pockets as big as all outdoors.

lfigueroa
09-19-2007, 12:29 PM
I guess I would look at it a lot differently. I think that no top player playing a serious game would ever play a shot out of the rack rather than play safe on the first shot of the game. I have never seen it done in any serious tournament. If someone did try it, the other players would have thought of him as a goof-ball or a freak. I have heard that Mosconi did it under some circumstances, but I doubt that he ever did it in a world championship match.

That's not to say that it's always the wrong shot. In an intramural tournament in college, my doubles partner banked the corner ball back from the full rack three times in a game to 75. Our opponents probably couldn't have won anyway, but this move devastated them. I think my partner may also have figured that they were likely to miss after two shots and then I'd shoot. The table had soft pockets as big as all outdoors.

I saw Mosconi several times in SF. On at least one occasion, to start off an exhibition match against a pretty helpless opponent, he played the corner ball bank for the break.

Personally, whenever I'm "going for the record" :-) I start with a break ball, ala your 14.1 challenge at the DCC. I use to just smack em wide open, but feel this is more legit.

Lou Figueroa

Gerry
09-19-2007, 03:32 PM
100 is 100, I don't care how you start. If your opponent leaves you tough, a hanger, or a dead one in the pack....I don't care. Once you make one get in line, and run 60, 80, 100 plus.....you are playing straight pool!:)

I hear "who beat whom" to the shot in your post which is all well and good, but running 100's and beating the other guy to the shot are 2 different worlds IMO.

On a similar note....is 100 in practice worth as much as 100 in a match?

My first 106 and out was in a $ match, and totally unexpected. My high run 127 was in practice and I don't give it as much credence.

My best run IMO was 63 and out in a tourney against someone I wasn't supposed to beat, and Allen Hopkins, Jack C, and Danny B were watching.:o
Gerry

Pushout
09-19-2007, 07:48 PM
I was taught "It ain't how many you run, it's who you run them against".

JimS
09-19-2007, 08:26 PM
I am old school, and back in the days, when someone had a big run in Straight Pool, it mattered whether it was from the break or not. That means from the 1st shot. That means you had to make a ball off the first break and then run balls.

Someone that ran a 100+ 'off the break' was held in higher esteem than just someone that had run a 100+, otherwise it is like having a running start before the run if the rack was broke up already.

How many starting break shots do you know that you can make a ball?

Another little thing, in the old days, playing the ghost was done with NO
ball in hand after break, and it was really something if you could beat the ghost back then.

Me, I am for keeping the 'difficulty' in Pool.......why, because it separates the men from the boys, the real players from the wannabees.

Your thoughts?

Smacking the full pack and making a ball spreads the rest of them all over the table which makes the first 13 pretty easy pickins.

I like Blackjack's way of counting the run. Throw out 15 balls. Shoot them off leaving a break ball. Rack'm up and start counting w/the break ball being the first ball in the run.

That method truly does keep the difficulty in pool just as you suggest and just as it should be.

CreeDo
09-20-2007, 10:19 AM
Doesn't make sense to me that this is worth more respect. The guys who do this aren't doing anything special except gambling on a low percentage shot that no serious player would take when there's a lot at stake. As Jim noted, the first thirteen are easy so at least part of the run is easier than a 100 ball run from the racker.

Maybe it takes cojones to try that trickshot at the start, but equally it takes balls to fire in that long sharp 7-8 foot cut shot with the CB snug on the rail (see mike sigel vs. zuglan) and somehow chip away at the first rack and get rolling from a difficult position.

This sounds like one of those things old guys say to convince themselves (or others) that they really were superior to the know-nothing kids today... even after they've lost a step.

As for the question about how many shots I know of from a full rack:
1. top ball in the side pocket
2. corner ball into the corner pocket, but it's so touchy that it's insane... if the equipment is right you can do a 1p style break and try to hit the first and second balls at almost exactly the same time, sending the opposite corner ball towards the hole
3. Clip a corner ball somewhere between half full and 1/3rd full with inside english and plenty of speed to bank it in the corner nearest you
4. On a particular table I shoot on, I can very often put a ball just behind the apex ball into the side. Dunno if this should count though, because it pretty much seems to work on 1 table, with a particular guy racking, and I can't even get the other ball in the 2nd row to go towards the other side. So it's flukey.

alstl
09-20-2007, 10:41 AM
I guess I would look at it a lot differently. I think that no top player playing a serious game would ever play a shot out of the rack rather than play safe on the first shot of the game. I have never seen it done in any serious tournament. If someone did try it, the other players would have thought of him as a goof-ball or a freak. I have heard that Mosconi did it under some circumstances, but I doubt that he ever did it in a world championship match.

That's not to say that it's always the wrong shot. In an intramural tournament in college, my doubles partner banked the corner ball back from the full rack three times in a game to 75. Our opponents probably couldn't have won anyway, but this move devastated them. I think my partner may also have figured that they were likely to miss after two shots and then I'd shoot. The table had soft pockets as big as all outdoors.

I have a couple of questions. When you are playing by yourself trying to run balls and you miss the rack on your breakout shot, is there a particular shot that is preferred or are you just out of luck?

Also, do you know Bill Hendricks, 1964 intercollegiate champion who lives in the St Louis area?

JimS
09-20-2007, 10:48 AM
Seems like if you missed the rack on your breakout shot/break shot then you start over. You missed. You didn't pocket a ball so you start counting over.

Bob Jewett
09-20-2007, 11:24 AM
... When you are playing by yourself trying to run balls and you miss the rack on your breakout shot, is there a particular shot that is preferred or are you just out of luck?

Also, do you know Bill Hendricks, 1964 intercollegiate champion who lives in the St Louis area?
On the first point, if you are desperate to make a shot from a 14-ball (or full) rack, there are six or ten different shots that can be played. Bob Byrne has a bunch in one or more of his books. All of Byrne's pool-related books belong on your library shelf, even the one that is an anthology of "great pool stories."

Of the top of my head:
bank the corner ball back as mentioned before
from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the corner or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side
from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side
from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side
play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side
play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run)

All of these depend very strongly on the rack and/or the condition of the cloth.

alstl
09-20-2007, 03:25 PM
On the first point, if you are desperate to make a shot from a 14-ball (or full) rack, there are six or ten different shots that can be played. Bob Byrne has a bunch in one or more of his books. All of Byrne's pool-related books belong on your library shelf, even the one that is an anthology of "great pool stories."

Of the top of my head:
bank the corner ball back as mentioned before
from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the corner or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side
from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side
from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side
play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side
play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run)

All of these depend very strongly on the rack and/or the condition of the cloth.

Thanks for the reply. I've got one of Byrne's books but I moved recently and I have no idea where it is.

Bob Jewett
09-20-2007, 03:29 PM
... from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the corner or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side ...
Oops. The first shot should have been the head ball straight in the side, which is also a shot at nine ball. If anyone figures out how to make the head ball in any corner, I'd like to see it. Maybe on a bank off the side rail with transferred spin.

sjm
09-22-2007, 10:23 PM
100 is 100, I don't care how you start. If your opponent leaves you tough, a hanger, or a dead one in the pack....I don't care.

I agree completely. How the run starts shouldn't matter.

Steve Lipsky
09-23-2007, 10:50 AM
High runs in straight pool are a piece of art. They reflect a moment in time in the player's head, when creativity, knowledge, and execution were all working perfectly in synch.

This argument is strange to me because it suggests that breaking up the balls is difficult. To someone who is capable of running high numbers, breaking up the balls is not difficult... running them out is the trickier part. Running them to a break ball is difficult.

Whether you started from a botched safe or with a wide open table or with a dead ball in the rack, it's all the same.

The beauty in the long run is not in the individual shots which make it up but in the ability to sustain concentration and execution for so long. I'm sorry, but I think to a degree some people are missing the point on this.

- Steve

Snapshot9
09-23-2007, 11:32 AM
I mostly agree with you, and I do like Blackjack's way of starting for a run.

Stay with me here:

If 2 men were to build a boat, and one is supplied all the materials for the boat to make, and made a good boat. The other guy started with nothing, had to figure out what to buy to make his boat. When both boats were done, and both of equal quality, which one of the 2 men would you consider to be the better boat builder?

Another illustration: If 2 men were doing the triple jump, and one had the running start, and the other had to start from a standing start, which one is more probable to jump the furtherest?

And any good player can run balls if they are spread out without much trouble, but deciding on a break ball (which isn't too hard after playing some - players deficiencies show up here just like in other games) and getting the cue ball in the optimal positon is truly one of the finer points of the game. Break shots may or not be that simple, you will see many of them being missed. My point being that creativity and good logic
are 2 attributes that rise to the top when playing 14.1, and this applies to the starting break as well, and should not be excluded or overlooked in the runs.

Anther example is that a pack starts with the break and continues consecutively through each rack and subsequent break and rack, not in midstream, or as some guys will proclaim to do a 6 pack and not count the breaks.

Another point I am trying to make is that yesterday's standards and milestones have been compromised into something easier to do because
the original standards were not reached by players. The perfect example is getting BIH after the break playing the ghost, where yesterday's standards included the break when playing the ghost. Are we, in fact, compromising just to get a 'feel better' as a player? Do these compromises , in fact, deter from the sports quality overall? This could even extend into various games rule changes over the years?

Thoughts?

mbvl
09-23-2007, 01:13 PM
That's not to say that it's always the wrong shot. In an intramural tournament in college, my doubles partner banked the corner ball back from the full rack three times in a game to 75. Our opponents probably couldn't have won anyway, but this move devastated them. I think my partner may also have figured that they were likely to miss after two shots and then I'd shoot. The table had soft pockets as big as all outdoors.

Back in 1994 on ASP Bob wrote:

"[He] and I were the UC Berkeley Intramural 14.1 Team Champions about
1973. Twice in one match, he banked the corner ball from the rack of 14
back to a far corner pocket. Drove the opponents crazy. The two-man
team play was by alternating inning."

It sounds like the urban legend just keeps growing.

Mark

Williebetmore
09-23-2007, 01:37 PM
High runs in straight pool are a piece of art. They reflect a moment in time in the player's head, when creativity, knowledge, and execution were all working perfectly in synch.

This argument is strange to me because it suggests that breaking up the balls is difficult. To someone who is capable of running high numbers, breaking up the balls is not difficult... running them out is the trickier part. Running them to a break ball is difficult.

Whether you started from a botched safe or with a wide open table or with a dead ball in the rack, it's all the same.

The beauty in the long run is not in the individual shots which make it up but in the ability to sustain concentration and execution for so long. I'm sorry, but I think to a degree some people are missing the point on this.

- Steve

SL,
I can't give you any rep, but BRAVO; POST OF THE YEAR. You really hit the nail on the head, and in elegant fashion (much like your straight pool game:) ).

I wish though that you had told me this several years ago; it took me a while to see that this is true. Though still a relative novice; I really study the game, and most of my play is 14.1. When I first started I really thought that getting the balls apart was going to be the very most challenging part of the game - many players in our league never went into the balls unless they had to; and many never manufactured their own shots, preferring to just pick off open balls and play safeties.

The first few years I spent large amounts of time and effort learning how to get clusters open in the safest and best ways possible. It was the way to differentiate myself from the lower skill players in the league - and I truly thought that long runs would follow. NOT SO. I would often get down to the last 5 or 6 or 7 balls, wide open, and STILL NOT GET ON THE BREAK SHOT. Very deceiving, because it looked like that should be the easy part.

As I began competing with some champion players, they all (and my instructors) agreed with you. Learning to navigate the end table; and pick out a safe, workable pattern is not as easy as many think. Learning to maintain your concentration for the time necessary for a multi-rack run is not a gift, it is a learned skill. My straight pool guru's have specific drills to try to develop this concentration; but they all echo one of your previous sentiments - it's easier to concentrate for long periods during competition than it is in practice.

Reaper114
09-23-2007, 01:43 PM
Now 14-1 at a high level Is the hardest discipline of any cuesport! I agree making high runs is an art form, You have to be able to cue nicely and have the mental attributes too compete!

But too says its not as good when your left a shot too start off the run is a crime! You can force your opponent to make mistakes etc etc. In my personal opinion most of the break off shots to pot a ball aren't guarenteed all the time and are risky at the best of times! Do you really think two players of a very high standard are going to take that chance when playing for serious money or in a tournament race! Its one thing pushing the boat out from time to time! It's another thing being wreckless!!!!

You can say that the game is easier now than it was, due to the advances in equipment. But does that mean a great player of today wouldnt be able to play great if they started with the old equipment Probably would work Vice versa! Talent is Talent No matter what decade you come from!!

Now I only play 14-1 about once a week as i dont have the time to practice as much as id like too! but when I do I make it as hard as possible to beat the ghost!
Heres my 14-1 routine game
No BIH to Start
race to a 150(3 or 5 games)
play as if it was a tournament match(Safetys until a chance)!
If I dont run out! I use the run as the ghosts marker (only if its higher than 65, If the markers not over 65 that game goes to the ghost)!
If i dont beat the marker the game goes to the ghost! Now if i beat the marker and dont run the full amount I score as follows
half a point to me if the run is under 100,
if over 100 its 0.75 of a point,
Only get a full point if I run the set!

Jimmy M.
09-23-2007, 02:30 PM
100 is a 100. You can take a person who isn't capable of running 100, give them a wide open table to start with and, I promise, they will not run 100.

The idea that you have to blast something out of a full rack of balls to start in order for your 100 to really be "100" is a bit absurd, in my opinion.

dave sutton
09-23-2007, 03:23 PM
i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

Jimmy M.
09-23-2007, 03:44 PM
That's something entirely different and I might also give more credit to a run that was done under competitive pressure vs. one that was done in practice. However, since straight-pool isn't really the game anymore, you'll rarely see anyone playing a game to enough points for a player to run 300+ competitively. I'd like to see some 1000-point matches between today's top players to see what kind of runs they could put together in a match situation. Until then, most of today's high-runs are going to come in practice.


i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask

dave sutton
09-23-2007, 08:42 PM
That's something entirely different and I might also give more credit to a run that was done under competitive pressure vs. one that was done in practice. However, since straight-pool isn't really the game anymore, you'll rarely see anyone playing a game to enough points for a player to run 300+ competitively. I'd like to see some 1000-point matches between today's top players to see what kind of runs they could put together in a match situation. Until then, most of today's high-runs are going to come in practice.

allen claims to have never lost a 1000 pt match...ever...

there are no matches that high anyway. weather its a 100 or 150 pt match you just dont stop running until you miss. thats what jose did. 362 later he missed :D :D :D

Solartje
09-24-2007, 03:48 AM
On the first point, if you are desperate to make a shot from a 14-ball (or full) rack, there are six or ten different shots that can be played. Bob Byrne has a bunch in one or more of his books. All of Byrne's pool-related books belong on your library shelf, even the one that is an anthology of "great pool stories."

Of the top of my head:
bank the corner ball back as mentioned before
from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the corner or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side
from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side
from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side
play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side
play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run)

All of these depend very strongly on the rack and/or the condition of the cloth.


bob, just for easyer visualisation:

if you have some time, would u mind drawing them on a cuetable?
i know 1 shot but all the rest are hard to imagine...

Steve Lipsky
09-24-2007, 05:05 AM
i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask


Dave,

With all due respect, what gave you the belief that it is harder to run balls in match play than in practice?

Every pro I know, and some non-pros I know too, loves to play in front of a crowd, and loves to play in competition. It keeps them focused to a level they couldn't come close to achieving in practice.

Put simply, who wants to miss a hanger in front of a crowd, or against an opponent who will keep him in the chair for half an hour because of it?

- Steve

Steve Lipsky
09-24-2007, 07:03 AM
Here's another way to look at it:

Schedule a match between Thorsten and John Schmidt. Race to 2,000 points over 4 days. Put it in front of a crowd.

At the same time, let's assume that Thomas Engert practices every day for a fair amount of time. (If he doesn't, insert any top player who does.)

If you had to bet on which group of players (Hohmann/Schmidt or Engert/Engert) had higher runs during the period in question, which would you bet?

I'm betting on the guys in the match all the way. They're pumped up, driven, and focused. I think between those two, you'd almost be a favorite to see a 200 along the way.

- Steve

Steve Lipsky
09-24-2007, 10:04 AM
If 2 men were to build a boat, and one is supplied all the materials for the boat to make, and made a good boat. The other guy started with nothing, had to figure out what to buy to make his boat. When both boats were done, and both of equal quality, which one of the 2 men would you consider to be the better boat builder?

This analogy only (sort of) works if you are comparing two guys whose high runs are 14. One starts with nothing, the other starts with a wide open rack. The difficulty in straight pool is not breaking up the balls... it's getting on a break shot.

It's almost as if you are trying to count the secondary break shots as some meaningful number in a run. I think you are going down the wrong path with this attitude... some 100-ball runs will have 8 primary and secondary breakshots, some will have 30. It depends on the table, and how it's breaking. You might remember the "tougher" runs more than the easier ones, but the difference between the 100 started with an open table and the 100 started with a more closed table is only one more breakshot, maybe 2.

What if the run which started with an open table was a much more difficult run than the one which started with a closed table?





Another illustration: If 2 men were doing the triple jump, and one had the running start, and the other had to start from a standing start, which one is more probable to jump the furtherest?

Sorry, not buying it... this isn't even in the ballpark of being a correct analogy. There are certain lengths the standing jumper simply won't be able to attain. This is not the case at all in pool. Whether the table starts closed or not, give any opportunity at all to a good player, and often within four shots, the table will be wide open.





And any good player can run balls if they are spread out without much trouble, but deciding on a break ball (which isn't too hard after playing some - players deficiencies show up here just like in other games) and getting the cue ball in the optimal positon is truly one of the finer points of the game. Break shots may or not be that simple, you will see many of them being missed. My point being that creativity and good logic
are 2 attributes that rise to the top when playing 14.1, and this applies to the starting break as well, and should not be excluded or overlooked in the runs.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I will say that there is nothing "creative" about playing a shot off a closed rack (there's no inventing going on, they're all known shots), and how you can bring "good logic" into the argument of playing such a careless (let alone insulting) shot... I mean, I'm confused.

If a guy wants to take a flier at this, fine, but you'll have a helluva time convincing me he's employing good logic!





Anther example is that a pack starts with the break and continues consecutively through each rack and subsequent break and rack, not in midstream, or as some guys will proclaim to do a 6 pack and not count the breaks.

Not sure what this means.






Another point I am trying to make is that yesterday's standards and milestones have been compromised into something easier to do because
the original standards were not reached by players. The perfect example is getting BIH after the break playing the ghost, where yesterday's standards included the break when playing the ghost. Are we, in fact, compromising just to get a 'feel better' as a player? Do these compromises , in fact, deter from the sports quality overall? This could even extend into various games rule changes over the years?

Thoughts?

There is some truth in this, although I think a lot of it is romanticized. I think 9-ball theory has only improved over the decades, and while the old-time guys did not take BIH after the break when playing the ghost, it doesn't mean their percentage in beating the ghost was any higher than it would be now. It just means they played a tougher version of it.

pdcue
09-24-2007, 11:04 AM
allen claims to have never lost a 1000 pt match...ever...

there are no matches that high anyway. weather its a 100 or 150 pt match you just dont stop running until you miss. thats what jose did. 362 later he missed :D :D :D

There may not be any 'offical' matches that long today
but 1500 point matches used to be quite common.

Back in the glory days of Straight Pool contenders could challenge
a champion to a one on one block match.

Dale

Williebetmore
09-24-2007, 11:16 AM
There may not be any 'offical' matches that long today
but 1500 point matches used to be quite common.

Back in the glory days of Straight Pool contenders could challenge
a champion to a one on one block match.

Dale

D,
The multi-city exhibition matches between heavyweights like Mosconi and Greenleaf would often exceed 2000 balls for the winner.

I personally have played several 1000 point matches (but have NEVER won one.....hmmmm....what does that say about my game).

I believe sjm has had a 1000 point match with a very prominent opponent - I don't recall the result (he probably did better than me).

pdcue
09-24-2007, 11:57 AM
I mostly agree with you, and I do like Blackjack's way of starting for a run.

Stay with me here:

If 2 men were to build a boat, and one is supplied all the materials for the boat to make, and made a good boat. The other guy started with nothing, had to figure out what to buy to make his boat. When both boats were done, and both of equal quality, which one of the 2 men would you consider to be the better boat builder?

Another illustration: If 2 men were doing the triple jump, and one had the running start, and the other had to start from a standing start, which one is more probable to jump the furtherest?

And any good player can run balls if they are spread out without much trouble, but deciding on a break ball (which isn't too hard after playing some - players deficiencies show up here just like in other games) and getting the cue ball in the optimal positon is truly one of the finer points of the game. Break shots may or not be that simple, you will see many of them being missed. My point being that creativity and good logic
are 2 attributes that rise to the top when playing 14.1, and this applies to the starting break as well, and should not be excluded or overlooked in the runs.

Anther example is that a pack starts with the break and continues consecutively through each rack and subsequent break and rack, not in midstream, or as some guys will proclaim to do a 6 pack and not count the breaks.

Another point I am trying to make is that yesterday's standards and milestones have been compromised into something easier to do because
the original standards were not reached by players. The perfect example is getting BIH after the break playing the ghost, where yesterday's standards included the break when playing the ghost. Are we, in fact, compromising just to get a 'feel better' as a player? Do these compromises , in fact, deter from the sports quality overall? This could even extend into various games rule changes over the years?

Thoughts?

I've had a thought for a while now.

What EXACTLY are you talking about.

Is it practice runs? Is it runs in a real competition, tourney or money match?

And, exactly who and where did anybody EVER think it was more of an
accomplishment to fire into the opening break shot.
I think it has been established that no player involved in a serious match
would ever do that. So, what's the point?

Practice often involves setting up and shooting a favorable break shot,
then shooting till you miss. This is far from new - and requires MORE
skill than just framming into the 15 ball rack and getting lucky.

Again, it seems to me you must have been influenced by players
in their own little area who had a seriously flawed concept af 14.1.

Where was it again?

Dale

lfigueroa
09-24-2007, 05:56 PM
High runs in straight pool are a piece of art. They reflect a moment in time in the player's head, when creativity, knowledge, and execution were all working perfectly in synch.

This argument is strange to me because it suggests that breaking up the balls is difficult. To someone who is capable of running high numbers, breaking up the balls is not difficult... running them out is the trickier part. Running them to a break ball is difficult.

Whether you started from a botched safe or with a wide open table or with a dead ball in the rack, it's all the same.

The beauty in the long run is not in the individual shots which make it up but in the ability to sustain concentration and execution for so long. I'm sorry, but I think to a degree some people are missing the point on this.

- Steve

Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa

lfigueroa
09-24-2007, 06:00 PM
i figured id add a bit to this

i am very very close to a world champion straight pool player named jose garcia.

for those who dont know him his high run is 362 in match play might i add.

i stress this bc a good number of these pros high runs are in practice with a set up break shot.

not taking anything away from a 400 ball run but its a little different when a crowd is watchin and it actually means something

i know allen hopkins pretty well also and his high is 402 i believe but i dont know if its in match play or practice. i have to ask


My personal experience is that I'm likely to run more balls in competition than practicing. In competition, it's easier to stay focused and take your time.

I seem to recall that not long ago on this forum someone asked Ervolino to see how many he could run. He didn't run very many, like maybe 40 or 60, and he just quit after a while saying it just wasn't the same as competition.

Lou Figueroa

Steve Lipsky
09-24-2007, 09:17 PM
Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa


Thank you Lou, I do respect your opinion, as well as all the other posters.

Perhaps my disagreement can be seen a little better with the below diagrams. No matter what my opponent leaves when he misses, be it this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BKAP3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO3NGfa3OBal4PDQN@

or this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BOMi3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO3NCyr3OBal4PXEM@

or this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BEkr3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO4NUjs3OBal4PPoo@

within 3 or 4 shots, all the above tables will look like this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4CADi3DOoU3EIcS3FENx3GBSN4HOya4IIDv4JPNv3KEse3LF fn4MGIx2OQRm4PCOX@

I know a lot of you are around some amazing players, and so I am really perplexed why we're having this disagreement. You give an opening to Jose Garcia like any of these 3 tables, you WILL be sitting for a long time. Same thing for any of the top Chicago players you're around, Lou. Same thing for YOU, Lou ;).

I'll just say it this last time, and then let it go: If you expect to leave any of the top 3 layouts to a strong 14.1 player and get back to the table sometime soon, you're in for a surprise more than you think.

I guess I just don't see the value in comparing two runs of the same length based on if the first 3 shots were hard or easy. That's pretty much how I see this debate.

Still, I respect all of your opinions and will try to think about this some more to see if they grow on me.

Thanks,
Steve

Steve Lipsky
09-24-2007, 09:19 PM
but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou, I just reread this and saw this part. I agree that practice runs starting from a break ball are somehow "cleaner". I always start with a break ball in practice.

bruin70
09-24-2007, 09:44 PM
I am old school, and back in the days, when someone had a big run in Straight Pool, it mattered whether it was from the break or not. That means from the 1st shot. That means you had to make a ball off the first break and then run balls.

Someone that ran a 100+ 'off the break' was held in higher esteem than just someone that had run a 100+, otherwise it is like having a running start before the run if the rack was broke up already.

How many starting break shots do you know that you can make a ball?

Another little thing, in the old days, playing the ghost was done with NO
ball in hand after break, and it was really something if you could beat the ghost back then.

Me, I am for keeping the 'difficulty' in Pool.......why, because it separates the men from the boys, the real players from the wannabees.

Your thoughts?

how much better, then, is a 370 ball run off the break than one that is not? at what point do you give credit to the game strategy instead of the run's start.

Blackjack
09-24-2007, 09:49 PM
Gotta disagree, Steve. For a semi-accomplished player, starting with a wide open rack, after blasting them open, is an easy 14 and almost a lock for a decent break ball. It's like being spotted 14 to 100.

Yes, breaking them open is easy. But breaking them and controlling the cue ball to optimize your chances of another shot is not. Dealing with what results from your handy work is often an ugly story. And breaking a rack open with a break ball often results in a table layout that requires a few secondary cluster breakouts, which in turn requires managing the CB AND OBs to keep the run going. I know you know all this, but I think starting with a wide open rack is not the same as starting with a break ball, JMO.

Lou Figueroa

... and this is why I don't coun't the first 14 balls. My practice runs start with the the first break shot, but my preference is to set up for it - manufacture it - it just makes me feel as if I'm not starting with a "gimme" shot. That is why I toss the initial rack out on the table and work for that first break ball.

I also find myself running more balls while competing, as opposed to practice. Some of my highest runs have occrred after my opponent tried to break open the balls and miss the shot - leaving a wide open table. That is another reason I start with the initial 14 balls that don't count. lol

In competition, I have never tried to make a ball off the opening break shot, and I can't recall ever seeing anybody try that.

Bob Jewett
09-24-2007, 10:40 PM
Back in 1994 on ASP Bob wrote:
...
What sharp eyes you have. OK, two. But I'm sure you tried the shot at least twice. Did you make it both times?

Bob Jewett
09-24-2007, 11:03 PM
To answer the question asked before, I have read Hendricks' book about the history of pool, but never met him.

To clarify some of the shots:

from a 15-ball rack, head ball in the side (I said corner) -- this is like the standard nine-ball break from the side. Adjusting the follow and hit seems to help, but a tight rack is critical. I suppose it might be possible to miss the side and bank into a head corner pocket, but that would be a remarkable call.

(15-ball rack) or kick the head ball 2 rails to the side -- from behind the line, the cue ball hits side-rail, foot-rail and then a back corner ball full. The head ball is driven two rails (side, head) towards a side pocket.

from under the rack, bank the corner ball cross-side -- from the center of the foot rail, hit either back corner ball as full as you can without hitting the ball next to it first. That ball will bank cross-side. Adjust the position of the cue ball and the spin and speed to change the bank angle. Tight rack!

from under the rack play one of the head balls into the side -- experiment with this one. Try to hit two balls at almost the same time. The head balls have to go someplace, and you can influence where by the timing and angle of the hit. The rack, again, is critical.

play the "one pocket dead ball break" by hitting the upper two balls on the side -- I think this is clear enough if you have ever watched one pocket breaks. From behind the line, hit the head ball thinly and then the ball behind it. The far corner ball has to go somewhere, and sometimes it goes straight into the corner pocket.

play a shot like the one-pocket break where the cue ball runs towards the foot rail and knocks the corner ball in as the corner ball is bouncing off the foot rail (Mosconi played this in an exhibition to continue his run) -- when you break at one pocket, the back corner ball on the side you break from often goes to the foot rail and bounces out to leave an easy shot for your opponent. If the cue ball, after having caromed off the side of the rack, meets that object ball as it comes off the cushion, the object ball can be redirected into the pocket.

Jimmy M.
09-25-2007, 02:19 AM
I have a question then ... if I throw 15 balls on the table, then proceed to run 114, do I get credit for 100 or was my run tainted? :)

Also, if I blast a dead one out of the full 15-ball rack, the balls spread everywhere, and I run 100, that's better than me setting up a break shot and running 100 from there? No wonder this game will make a person mental.

/me makes a note to take up 3-ball.

lfigueroa
09-25-2007, 06:08 AM
Thank you Lou, I do respect your opinion, as well as all the other posters.

Perhaps my disagreement can be seen a little better with the below diagrams. No matter what my opponent leaves when he misses, be it this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BKAP3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO3NGfa3OBal4PDQN@

or this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BOMi3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO3NCyr3OBal4PXEM@

or this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4AbIO4BEkr3CCpA4DCYe4EFCe3FCxe4GBKP3HAMB3IAUe3JF bd4KDnP3LBjP3MEMO4NUjs3OBal4PPoo@

within 3 or 4 shots, all the above tables will look like this:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@4CADi3DOoU3EIcS3FENx3GBSN4HOya4IIDv4JPNv3KEse3LF fn4MGIx2OQRm4PCOX@

I know a lot of you are around some amazing players, and so I am really perplexed why we're having this disagreement. You give an opening to Jose Garcia like any of these 3 tables, you WILL be sitting for a long time. Same thing for any of the top Chicago players you're around, Lou. Same thing for YOU, Lou ;).

I'll just say it this last time, and then let it go: If you expect to leave any of the top 3 layouts to a strong 14.1 player and get back to the table sometime soon, you're in for a surprise more than you think.

I guess I just don't see the value in comparing two runs of the same length based on if the first 3 shots were hard or easy. That's pretty much how I see this debate.

Still, I respect all of your opinions and will try to think about this some more to see if they grow on me.

Thanks,
Steve


Perhaps the basis of my response is rooted in a separate, but related subject, but here goes anyway: I think, given the conditions the vast majority of pool players across the country play under, even for a top player, the outcomes don't have to turn out as you describe. Why? Because, unlike those that play in a 14.1 milieu, where playing conditions and equipment are recognized to be an integral part of how the game should be played, most of us are playing under much more difficult conditions, with less than optimal equipment.

Consider the conditions many players play under: the balls, though Centennials, are often many years old and slightly pitted from those occasions when a mechanic hasn't properly pounded in all those little nails to keep the pocket liners in place. Though the balls may be cleaned regularly, they've probably been in use for many, many years, are not polished, the precise same size, and all that. The cloth on the table, though Simonis and vacuumed often, is frequently approaching a year or more in age. And then there's the pockets. Better players seek out tougher equipment. And so there's a chance they're playing on tables for which the word touchy does not begin to do them justice. All shots must be shot perfectly -- touch a cushion on the way in, and the ball will not drop.

Soooo, the TV or jukebox is blasting (or maybe both). The waitress, bartender, houseman, other customers are oblivious to what you're doing and frequently walk in front of your line-of-sight as you're about to backcut a break shot on that one ball with the big slice in it over an area of cloth with a slight but noticeable tear in it from the idiot who was on the table the night before demonstrating masse and jump shots to his girlfriend and towards a pocket that spits more than a merchant marine.

My point is that most players aren't playing in a room where 14.1 is the norm, the sweators all sit respectfully on the rail, the music is muted, the Simonis changed regularly, the pockets tough, but fair, and the year old Centennials cleaned and polished daily. Under those kinds of conditions, my answer would be yes: given the situations you outlined, the balls will drop, spread nicely, and you're in for a long spell in the chair. But under the much more common conditions I described above, no. No one has to like continuing a run.

Lou Figueroa

Steve Lipsky
09-25-2007, 07:01 AM
Perhaps the basis of my response is rooted in a separate, but related subject, but here goes anyway: I think, given the conditions the vast majority of pool players across the country play under, even for a top player, the outcomes don't have to turn out as you describe. Why? Because, unlike those that play in a 14.1 milieu, where playing conditions and equipment are recognized to be an integral part of how the game should be played, most of us are playing under much more difficult conditions, with less than optimal equipment.

Consider the conditions many players play under: the balls, though Centennials, are often many years old and slightly pitted from those occasions when a mechanic hasn't properly pounded in all those little nails to keep the pocket liners in place. Though the balls may be cleaned regularly, they've probably been in use for many, many years, are not polished, the precise same size, and all that. The cloth on the table, though Simonis and vacuumed often, is frequently approaching a year or more in age. And then there's the pockets. Better players seek out tougher equipment. And so there's a chance they're playing on tables for which the word touchy does not begin to do them justice. All shots must be shot perfectly -- touch a cushion on the way in, and the ball will not drop.

Soooo, the TV or jukebox is blasting (or maybe both). The waitress, bartender, houseman, other customers are oblivious to what you're doing and frequently walk in front of your line-of-sight as you're about to backcut a break shot on that one ball with the big slice in it over an area of cloth with a slight but noticeable tear in it from the idiot who was on the table the night before demonstrating masse and jump shots to his girlfriend and towards a pocket that spits more than a merchant marine.

My point is that most players aren't playing in a room where 14.1 is the norm, the sweators all sit respectfully on the rail, the music is muted, the Simonis changed regularly, the pockets tough, but fair, and the year old Centennials cleaned and polished daily. Under those kinds of conditions, my answer would be yes: given the situations you outlined, the balls will drop, spread nicely, and you're in for a long spell in the chair. But under the much more common conditions I described above, no. No one has to like continuing a run.

Lou Figueroa


Lou, thanks, this is definitely an eye-opener. I will say your impression of NY rooms is a little off, as our music is blasting the same as yours, our waitresses sometimes interrupt, and the room is usually so full that it's difficult to concentrate. And by no means is 14.1 the normal game played.

We do play with nice equipment, though the pockets are definitely a little looser than what you describe. So of course this does make runs easier.

If the conditions where you are are so tough, though, I would give credence to ANY 100-ball run... I wouldn't qualify it on how it started! ;)

- Steve

mbvl
09-25-2007, 10:41 AM
What sharp eyes you have. OK, two. But I'm sure you tried the shot at least twice. Did you make it both times?

Sharp eyes, but a dull mind. My (hazy) recollection is two successful attempts.

Mark

lfigueroa
09-26-2007, 04:39 AM
Lou, thanks, this is definitely an eye-opener. I will say your impression of NY rooms is a little off, as our music is blasting the same as yours, our waitresses sometimes interrupt, and the room is usually so full that it's difficult to concentrate. And by no means is 14.1 the normal game played.

We do play with nice equipment, though the pockets are definitely a little looser than what you describe. So of course this does make runs easier.

If the conditions where you are are so tough, though, I would give credence to ANY 100-ball run... I wouldn't qualify it on how it started! ;)

- Steve


Did I mention the slight roll off up table to the left corner pocket :-)

Actually, a couple of things. First, the room I play at is very nice -- but I have seen conditions similar to those I described at other pool rooms in St. Louis and across the country. The other thing is that I got a chance to play at a couple of NY pool rooms when I was there to watch the 2000 14.1 Open, courtesy of Jimbo. I think we went to Amsterdam and Chelsea's, so I know what you're talking about when it comes to the music blaring.

But I guess, in my dreams, when I think of East Coast pool and 14.1, I like to think that the conditions are far better for 14.1 than for the rest of the country. There just have to be those rooms where the old school players have near perfect conditions. Or, there are those instances where the lucky few are practicing 14.1 on their home tables and the conditions really are optimal. I just wanted to point out that that's a whole different kettle of fish when you start talking about running 100s.

Lou Figueroa

Snapshot9
09-30-2007, 12:42 PM
for elaborating more on a few distinctive points I was trying to make.

And I live in Wichita, Ks., played Ks, Ok, and Texas when younger, plus the West Coast, CA and Wa. mostly. (when in the Navy).

Where area does Jose Garcia play in? or from?

And although I have not played 14.1 for quite some time, and never have in a tournament, I never started a match off with a safety. I always banked the corner ball back into the 1 (golf) pocket to start. (9 out of 10 shot for me).

Solartje
09-30-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by Steve Lipsky:

High runs in straight pool are a piece of art. They reflect a moment in time in the player's head, when creativity, knowledge, and execution were all working perfectly in synch

thats probably the best explenation of why 14-1 is so adicting.
LOVE this sentence...



ps anybody who can put in a weitable those bank the 1 in the corner shots?
bob posted them, but im having a hard time visualising it.

Jimmy M.
09-30-2007, 01:32 PM
And although I have not played 14.1 for quite some time, and never have in a tournament, I never started a match off with a safety. I always banked the corner ball back into the 1 (golf) pocket to start. (9 out of 10 shot for me).

I'd have to pay to see that. I'm not saying you can't do it 9 out of 10, but I am saying that you could beat me out of a little money if you did.

I've learned that, when someone says they can do something, it's wise not to bet against them. However, in this case, my disbelief would get the best of me. If nothing else, I might learn a new shot. If I'm ever in Wichita, I'll be seeking you out! ;)

bruin70
10-09-2007, 04:23 AM
if one is going to be picky about HOW a high starts, as if simply running 150 isn't quite good enough, then it makes sense to be dismissive of ALL runs not done in tournament play. that's what they do in other sports. since "playing for money" in pool seems to be the de rigeur criteria for acknowledging great player, i suppose there will be those who only recognize money game high runs.

a high run is a high run...end of story.