3 things you would change about pool

Are you delusional? You would ban anyone that voices their opinion? Just because you don't like the tenor of a post that means that poster should be banned? Its poor lil thin-skinned whiners like you that ruin forums. I SERIOUSLY doubt that anything i've ever said on here has caused anyone to run away. IF that happened they were probably too emotionally damaged to be on a forum full of pool players in the first place. WAAAAAAAAAAAA. Again, feel free to put me on ignore. I'll take it as a badge of honor believe me.
I don't believe that you were given permission to have an opinion. Lets chill out there, Francis. :) :)

Break Stats -- 2025 Florida Open (9-Ball), August 2025

Great post. It is what it is.

For whatever my opinion is worth and if it were my tournament, I think that racks in major events should be set by a neutral ref using a hand rack and players should not be able to inspect them or ask for a rerack. The rack is what it is. Remove any predictability by not allowing the players to have any say in the rack. Just break the balls and play.

Again, you dont like the rules, dont play. As Frosty said, you are a good player...."find a way".

Nine ball is supposed to be fast and loose in my opinion. Safety play is a huge part but certainly not more important than overall firepower. When it comes to making it appealing for viewers, people love watching Strickland (back in his prime), Filler, Shaw, SVB, etc because they run out and they run out at a reasonable pace. Offense with pace is good for the casual viewer for sure. And though its not about the casual viewer, the idea that it is good product for the casual viewer may be something to consider given the current state of trying to grow nine ball into something that creates tv revenue, drives prize pools and is overall more appealing. It could become a win win for both the players and the promoters. Hopefully.

Look at the PGA. A lot of players were not fond of Tiger, for whatever reason, early in his career. But, once they realized that they could become millionaires by simply making the PGA tour because of what he was doing for viewership, they were all for it. Even finishing top 20 in a single tournament was more money than the average person was making in a year. Finishing at that level in a number of tournaments and you were making more than doctors and lawyers.

The game grew because he ran over people with his firepower. He became a brand as much as a golfer and the smart golfers knew that his presence and the product that the PGA was putting on tv each week was making them rich. A couple years after he came along, second place was paying as much or more than what first place was prior to his arrival. And first place was at levels that nobody couldve dreamt of.

There are a few pool players now who are becoming a brand. Certainly that makes good business sense. Those windows are small. Capitalize when you can. Imagine if Archer had the opportunities back then that players have now with social media. I bet the stability (or lack thereof) in his life would be way different that it is now. He was never a brand. He was just a top tier pool player. And we all know that a status like that by itself isnt worth a whole lot in the big picture. It might be going forward given the current growing posture of prize funds, but a world champion in the 80's or 90's, though an incredible accomplishment, simply doesnt carry much weight these days.

If the prize money is right, players will show up no matter what the rules.

If you have the firepower to run rack after rack after rack, then why shouldnt you be able to even it means the corner ball going on the break over and over and over. We are playing on the same table. If I dont like watching you run out, then I need to make that same corner ball and run those same racks. Otherwise, I am going to get sent packing. In straight pool, running huge numbers is celebrated. In nine ball, its almost taboo. To me, that makes no sense.

Now, this is my personal opinion. Certainly if Matchroom feels that growing the game and driving their revenue is best with break boxes and trying to slow the game, then have at it. I am a believer in free enterprise much the same as I am a not a believer in participation trophies or everybody getting a turn. Its their product. Sell it, grow it, mold it or whatever however you see fit.

And I am a huge Matchroom fan. They are injecting so much money into the game that regardless of what or how they do it, I will support them because at least they are doing something for me as a fan. Would I prefer things the way I mentioned.....sure because I love to watch offense. But I am going to watch regardless.

I guess my whole point is that I agree with Frosty.
You covered more subjects then the players playing essentially "Break and first shot" by the breaking player. Honestly, while there is more money then in the past only the winner gets the big check.

If a player plays a bunch of tournaments and isn't first, he is lucky to make at the end of the year the takehome of an assistant manager of a fast food joint.

Second place was only $16,000. First got like 2 and 1/2 times the guy who came in second. Go down much further and the week is a break even or total loss.
I don't know what the weeks total attendance was, but at the final the seats looked pretty empty. People are not falling over themselves to come to pool the tournaments.

I am not sure there is any formula that can make pool much more then essentially (meaning you can't make a living), an amateur sport/game.

I live in a town with over 190,000 thousand people and there is not one pool room.
Years ago when I lived here there were not including bowling alley five pool rooms and I owned two of them. Pool now is almost all bar room play.

Back to the break, I like it with a rack and everything more random. What ever happens happens. In baseball today they don't even need the plate umpire. A computer can call perfect balls and strikes. I would not like to see that either.

Cue length

Another thread was discussing SVB removing his cue extension. I think him and Fedor now put the extension on for longer power shots.
What’s everyone’s opinion, I think it makes complete sense to have a longer cue if your arm span is longer.
It can’t be optimal to have the same cue length for a 5 ft 4 person and a 6 ft 4 person?
Maybe it does t make sense to change if you have used a standard cue length for years but anybody straying or with a lot of scope to improve, I’m sure that must be the way to go. Otherwise tall people will play shots with their hand hanging over the end or their elbow angle , less than optimal?
Absolutely!! My playing cue is 59" but my last 2 fingers were always wrapped around the cue bumper, I had a 2" custom made joint extension made, works perfectly. My hand usually ends up behind the wrap but that does not bother me.
That raises another question I have always had. Many people talk about the importance of the balance point of a cue or whether front/rear weighted, doesn't where you hold the cue come into play when talking about balance points? I have seen some league players whose cues were as tall as they were. I guess they saw players with extensions and figured it was the way to go regardless of the purpose of that extension.

Cue length

It all comes down to personal preference and results. After Earl, Shane, and Shaw started using one years ago, I gave a 6 inch extension a try and I've really liked it- it adds power and I feel like it stabilizes my stroke- it may be a placebo, but I think I play better with it. I'm not tall- only 5'9". The only real drawbacks are for very delicate shots and when there isn't enough space at some bars in league matches.

I think that people should at least give it a try before knocking it.

Filter

Back
Top