MitchAlsup said:

Both 9-ball and 10-ball ARE broken games--simply because game result is so HIGHLY dependent on the break.

14.1 continuous does not have this problem
1-ball does not have this problem
3-ball does not have this problem
8-ball does not have this problem
Snooker does not have this problem
and certainly
no Billiards game has this problem

Click to expand...

I think the points I disagree on are…

8-ball is absolutely broken for elite players because having that many options after the break is just too easy for 800+ players. Ultimate Pool and World Championships demonstrates that where matches are pretty much decided by wet/dry break ratios.

9-ball with WNT rules doesn’t have this problem. There’s skill to make the 1-ball in the side. And. Depending on the random 2-ball position in the rack there might be some scenarios that are predictable but not all of them are. The proof is that we see a respectable amount of pushouts, safeties, jumps, kicks, and safeties after the break. And that means matches are decided by the total package of skills for the players plus whatever luck shows up. But break skills so far is more of a marginal advantage than an exploited easy-win situation like we’ve seen in all the prior incarnations of 9-ball in years past.

straightline said:

Favorite among lesbians.

Click to expand...

Oh my.

iusedtoberich said:

View attachment 834000
The 4 points.

Click to expand...

I’m nothing special but I’ve been trying to make economic use of my time. Lately I practice on a 12’ snooker table. It’s hard to even make a straight in ball down the length of the table and I spend hours working on just that one or two times a week when I can get there. The idea being it’s hard, many repetitions, timely feedback, deliberate practice, and only been doing this for about the last 6 months. Mostly makes me focus on my fundamentals. Crazy how much it makes jumping to a bar box feel incredibly easy. Everything about this resonates.

A more straightforward solution might be to structure tournaments strictly based on Fargo ratings, which would make questions about gender or birth sex irrelevant. However, it seems there's a desire among some women to have access to women-only events for a sense of community or fairness, while also participating in open tournaments when advantageous. Alternatively, if the goal is to preserve women-only spaces, perhaps eligibility should be limited to individuals assigned female at birth, with participation restricted to those specific events. This reflects a broader tension sometimes seen in discussions around gender equity—what some might call a form of "Schrödinger’s feminism," where the criteria shift depending on context. Just my perspective.

Bob Jewett said:

Launching the ball off the table has been removed, as you noted. This is being used in more tournaments and I think is the right way to do it there.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, for what reasons do you think it’s the right way to do it?

Bob Jewett said:

Whether jump cues are allowed is up to the event organizer. I think they shouldn't be a part of either 14.1 or one pocket.

Click to expand...

Would you please point me to where this is stated?

Bob Jewett said:

Rerack came in when most events moved to "rack your own". Pocketing a ball from your own rack seemed suspect, so the rerack came in. For major events, it is assumed referees will be racking. The event organizer could still specify a rerack.

Click to expand...

I’m probably biased because rerack was introduced before I started playing 1p. I think there’s a good argument for rerack even with a referee racking.

Bob Jewett said:

Note that some implementations of that rule seem to not cover some cases so an organizer who uses a rerack rule needs to figure out a clear, complete written rule.

Click to expand...

Yeah there are a lot of variations, many incomplete. I like to keep it simple with something like: if at least one ball is pocketed in any pocket, rerack.

The World Snooker Tour includes a number of women. They have won some matches, but I don't recall any woman going very deep in a tournament. Here is the current women's world champion in a match to qualify for the British Open.

Login to view embedded media

markjames said:

any argument that says

men are-
or women are-

is too short sighted to get to
the heart of this baffling discussion

i like the argument that comes from
the world of chess-

women are too smart to devote
themselves to something so inconsequential
and that doesn’t pay very well

Click to expand...

I think this assessment is hilarious and true but as in most things not an absolute reason. I believe wrist strength is a key factor in why men generally excel at pool. While overall muscular strength is not a factor necessarily… power lifters and professional level athletes are not great pool players. Men usually have significantly stronger wrists, which aids tremendously in control and shot execution. That’s why top male players come in all shapes and sizes, from Fedor Gorst to Buddy Hall… some of which may not have a tremendous overall muscular strength they still have more wrists strength than most women. Great pool players have a touch & finesse and both men and women can develop this for pool. In fact, women may match or exceed men in that area. As an example in the welding profession a skill requiring precision and finesse where men still dominate numerically overall though women are at least if not more skilled in the actual welding process itself, though I do realize some welding jobs require heavy lifting outside of the actual process of welding. I’ve always felt that the women that can hang in the welding profession because there are so few of them and some men like to make them feel like second class citizens, were better welders because of their natural touch and finesse and strength including wrist strength is not necessarily a requirement.

TheRooster said:

I gave the onepocket.org rules a re-read, and read the WPA rules. Here are some interesting differences I noticed:

1. ...

Click to expand...

The notion of in/out of the kitchen is the standard way it it defined in all other pool games.

Launching the ball off the table has been removed, as you noted. This is being used in more tournaments and I think is the right way to do it there. Private matches are up to the players.

Whether jump cues are allowed is up to the event organizer. I think they shouldn't be a part of either 14.1 or one pocket.

Rerack came in when most events moved to "rack your own". Pocketing a ball from your own rack seemed suspect, so the rerack came in. For major events, it is assumed referees will be racking. The event organizer could still specify a rerack. Note that some implementations of that rule seem to not cover some cases so an organizer who uses a rerack rule needs to figure out a clear, complete written rule. The traditional rule is no rerack -- the breaker continues if he makes a ball in his pocket.

Aramith Tournament ball sets are $275 at HollywoodBilliards.com, free shipping. Who wants to be the guinea pig?

RickLafayette said:

View attachment 833905

Click to expand...

Im not leaving!!!

cueman said:

Of all the Cue Makers I helped get started. Bob Manzino was the fastest to get top notch. Within about 6 months he was getting $1000 for a cue. That was pretty good for a beginner 1990's cuemaker. If I had bought several of his $1000 cues at the time they would be worth 3 or 4 times that now. But I have no way of predicting who has the lasting power even if they get good and recognized quick. Danny Tibbits would have been a great investment on his earlier cues right before John Wright discovered him. Your safest buying in my opinion is from a really good young cuemaker who was an apprentice with someone famous. Take Eddie Cohen, Josh Treadway or Barry Szamboti for examples. Their early cues are worth way more now. Take Jerry Franklin who apprenticed with Kersenbrock. I sold one for 10 times original price.

Click to expand...

Nobody is buying a Manzino for 4k. Period

Manzinos are nice, but 2k are the limits for resale.

I've noticed that the details for Cherokee are coming soon, very soon, 2 weeks. All we've seen is 100k for first and I thought I saw 50k for second.
Rooms were locked, no schedule of events, and you won't know what division you play in until the end of season 3 because you play whatever your end rating is, and they fluctuate so much from week to week.

Are there any details on days for each event, what events you can sign up for, further down pay spots for 3rd place and down, etc. plz.

The8BallPoolPod said:

Hi, I'm the CEO of Ultimate Pool USA, I can assure you, we don't pay anyone to play. What we do offer all players is an environment built for players by players. SVB for example watched our events and asked if he could come play.

The events are designed to support our league product, however all being pool fans we also want to provide the best events for viewers at home. Great to read so much nice feedback! Thanks everyone for the support

Click to expand...

DrCue'sProtege said:

Not with a hat on.

But I see someone on this Forum that makes videos of himself playing in his bare feet.

Imagine that. I can't.

Click to expand...

And he can give you the 7 out. Maybe your next move is to try barefoot?

Please show us the pictures, and the various run outs you make with each stick.

iusedtoberich said:

I don't think any maker would meet your criteria. $800 for a custom cue today is low, even for a year 1 builder. If he can't get $800 in year one, that means he won't become popular later on. IMO.

Click to expand...

Of all the Cue Makers I helped get started. Bob Manzino was the fastest to get top notch. Within about 6 months he was getting $1000 for a cue. That was pretty good for a beginner 1990's cuemaker. If I had bought several of his $1000 cues at the time they would be worth 3 or 4 times that now. But I have no way of predicting who has the lasting power even if they get good and recognized quick. Danny Tibbits would have been a great investment on his earlier cues right before John Wright discovered him. Your safest buying in my opinion is from a really good young cuemaker who was an apprentice with someone famous. Take Eddie Cohen, Josh Treadway or Barry Szamboti for examples. Their early cues are worth way more now. Take Jerry Franklin who apprenticed with Kersenbrock. I sold one for 10 times original price.

I dunno what others experience but I’ve been playing nothing but Centennials since 1985.

Along the way I tried other brands, never purchased any, but played many hrs on friends’
tables with other brands. Never had any issues or complaints about Centennials becoming
susceptible to getting marks, losing luster after polishing, or overall durability. Aside from
what one or even a few people might otherwise say, look at the overwhelming praise and
testimonials Brunswick Centennials continue receiving down through the decades from pool
players. Every other brand seems to always get compared with Centennials but Centennials
don’t seem to get compared with any other brands. Why do you think that might be? Hmn…..

I think it’s because when you’ve held the unofficial crown for being viewed as the best, at least
my recollection is from the time I started going to pool halls the summer of ‘62 after turning 16
that was the legal age min. in NYC at that time. Since I became a pool hall patron, Brunswick
Centennials have always been considered the premier brand but let’s face it. Back at that time
there were a lot less brands. IMO, even today, Centennials rank as #1 for appearance & playability.