Opinions on Oscar Vs. Morra Match!

[yobagua]

Many years ago I went up to my mentor after many years of study and asked him "How can I be the best at what we do?". He told me cryptically "First you have to learn to be a good Human Being!". I was confused and disappointed. I wanted to hear about technique, strategy, skills, some technological advanced invention, some way I could put my competition on tilt, etc.
I kept thinking of this and it dawned on me as I became more enmeshed in surviving on this planet. That you have to work with people, compete with people, and get support from people. That the environment that you work and compete in has to be one with your goals and your dreams. That you have to feel comfortable with yourself and the people around you in order to perform to the maximum. Sure some people compete better when they are themselves fighting against the world but mostly it results in self destruction.
Knowing Oscar and his father Ernesto being in the LA area I can say this is the approach they seem to have taken. Work hard, Play hard, but of the utmost to treat people and their work with respect. I could not not bet on Oscar because knowing that he would put himself out there a 110% and was doing it not for just the money but for the meaning of his whole existence. His family, self, and beliefs.
I dont know of Mr Morra but I hear the same things as well. These guys are true examples of the greatness of this and any sport. My only hope is that someday they both can be rightly rewarded for the work they do.

 

[DRW]

cloth speed

Chris,

I awalys respect your opinion and do here as well,

I just want to add a different thought to this discussion. I mentioned it doing commentary with Jay last nite.

If you use the B-Wick with 5" pockets-its a joke, too many run outs. If you use 4 5/8" pockets (Tournment B-Wick size on a GC-5) its still too easy for guys like Morra/Oscar. then we go down to what this match was played on, a one pocket table. 10 ball or any rotation game is a rythem run out type of game and that table really isnt the solution either. Correct?????



So whats the problem, we went from 5" buckets down to less than 4" snooker pockets and still dont have a table that blends with a rotation game. Correct?????


So whats the problem???? I dont think its the pocket size. Its the fast cloth-thats the problem. Guys like Earl were the only players that could really move the rock on the slow Mali cloth, it took a big stroke to move the rock. We all assume the OB is going to be made so what were all looking at is the shape on the next ball right? messing around with pocket sizes isnt the answere to the problem, slowing the tables down it IMO!!!!


Making the ball is only part of the game, where you put the CB is more important to players and educated rail birds. With this fast cloth it dosent take much to put the CB anywhere, Heck we all can "almost" do what Mike Massey does on slow cloth when we play on fast cloth. My point is Shape is too easy now and we have a ball pocketing issue, lets shift the focus back on to position play and not worry about pocketing balls.

with 5" pockets all the balls go in, 4" no body lets their stroke out very often, and when they miss they awalys have shape, shape is too easy on the fast cloth, I remember seeing Kim make some amazing shape shots with his stroke that only a handful of people could do, now on the fast cloth I see B players move the rock like that.


see what I mean?????


that table is fine for JA and Busta, but for normal players it just dosent work. It exploited the weakness of Morra and Oscar way to much, both of whom are great players.


we need the old cloth and med size pockets, a balance of those 2 things, not just pocket size, or deep Diamond shelfs

Interesting observation. The place I play at has very slow cloth with probably close to 5 inch pockets. The owner is going to change back to a faster cloth because of complaints from the day time crowd. The average age of the day crowd is probably 60 years old. I hear a few every now and then say they aren't strong enough to play on the tables. The pockets are cut funny and play tighter then they look.

 

[Bank2Win]

Just a thought or two.

Couple of things that I noticed and would like to mention.

1. John did not arrive in L.A. until Thursday, prior to that he was in Vegas where he played and won the local tournament at Mickey's Cues and Brews, on wednesday, and was seen hitting balls tuesday at the Cue Club.

One school of thought is that maybe he should have spent the week before this match in L.A. for several reasons. To spend a fair amout of time practicing on a table that Oscar has played on for years, and also to get comfortable with the change of climate, we all know what HUMIDITY does to the action of the balls when hit into the rails. Oscar is accustomzied to this John is not, thus one reason why Oscar's position play was better than Johns.

2. I was actually there Saturday night, and watched some of the match as well friday night, and the one thing i noticed on both nights was they did not try to to change their break very often. They both were struggling to make a ball and yet they both kept breaking from the same spot and the same speed. OK, yes they moved their break position from here to there but for the most part they would just keep hitting the break as hard as they could manage. I too found myself not being able to make a ball on the break while i was playing nineball just behind the stands.. I was playing $100 sets of nineball and was getting frustrated by not making any balls, so i changed tactics, i started to soft break, just enough pace to spread the rack, and shizzzamm i made a ball and ran out two racks in a row... then that stopped working so i starting using a cut break, or changed the speed of my break, anything to make a ball...and eventually after enough tinkering i found the magic spot and started making balls every rack.

Point is....Players need to adapt and change.

3. During the second session everyone could see that John was getting down and was losing confidence....when this happens change something... start free willings, swing at some shots, take some risks,, bank a ball, cut a ball, do something you haven't been doing to try to kickstart your game.. play fast and loose...because the tactic that he was using was not getting it done...so change, adapt, learn....


I had action on Oscar and was confident he would win, and I know John can play much better than he did....

Jason

 

[TATE]

Chris,

I awalys respect your opinion and do here as well,

I just want to add a different thought to this discussion. I mentioned it doing commentary with Jay last nite.

If you use the B-Wick with 5" pockets-its a joke, too many run outs. If you use 4 5/8" pockets (Tournment B-Wick size on a GC-5) its still too easy for guys like Morra/Oscar. then we go down to what this match was played on, a one pocket table. 10 ball or any rotation game is a rythem run out type of game and that table really isnt the solution either. Correct?????



So whats the problem, we went from 5" buckets down to less than 4" snooker pockets and still dont have a table that blends with a rotation game. Correct?????


So whats the problem???? I dont think its the pocket size. Its the fast cloth-thats the problem. Guys like Earl were the only players that could really move the rock on the slow Mali cloth, it took a big stroke to move the rock. We all assume the OB is going to be made so what were all looking at is the shape on the next ball right? messing around with pocket sizes isnt the answere to the problem, slowing the tables down it IMO!!!!


Making the ball is only part of the game, where you put the CB is more important to players and educated rail birds. With this fast cloth it dosent take much to put the CB anywhere, Heck we all can "almost" do what Mike Massey does on slow cloth when we play on fast cloth. My point is Shape is too easy now and we have a ball pocketing issue, lets shift the focus back on to position play and not worry about pocketing balls.

with 5" pockets all the balls go in, 4" no body lets their stroke out very often, and when they miss they awalys have shape, shape is too easy on the fast cloth, I remember seeing Kim make some amazing shape shots with his stroke that only a handful of people could do, now on the fast cloth I see B players move the rock like that.


see what I mean?????


that table is fine for JA and Busta, but for normal players it just dosent work. It exploited the weakness of Morra and Oscar way to much, both of whom are great players.


we need the old cloth and med size pockets, a balance of those 2 things, not just pocket size, or deep Diamond shelfs

I agree that a table can be too tight. If a table causes players to cinch shots and pass up usual down the rail shots - that's no good. A table with poorly cut pockets is also a nightmare. A table should play fair, not too easy, not too hard - just right. Finding the right balance is the hard part.

In my opinion, the smallest allowable corner should be 4" and the smallest side 5". Anything tighter is too difficult.

Chris

 

[Celtic]

In my opinion, the smallest allowable corner should be 4" and the smallest side 5". Anything tighter is too difficult.

Chris

You can get too small with pocket size but IMO this match did not show me the pockets were too small.

As I said, most of the time that Oscar OR John won control of the table via a safety battle it resulted in a runout. While they were not making a huge number of break and runs they "were" making alot of 8 and 9 ball runouts once they got control of the table.

As tight as the pockets were once Oscar won a safety battle and got his ball in hand on the 2-ball most people including the announcers expected him to get out, and more often then not he did. This tells me the pockets were not "too" tight, they were still allowing both players to run out the rack once they got control of the table a fairly decent percentage of the time. There were multiple games in a row played where neither player missed pots they shot at and the games were instead decided by missed kicks or jump shots after a good safe.

Oscar got out way too consistently and missed way too few runs once he had control for me to agree that the table was too tight. John was not missing that much either and when he did it was usually clearly a poor stroke and not the pocket spitting out a well hit ball. Both players were getting out once they had control of the table, Oscar just flat out got that control first more often then John did.

I can hardly remember many times the announcers going "wow I cannot believe that did not drop", most misses were more like "well he hit that one bad, that hit the rail at the diamond".

 

[AtLarge]

Jay, I disagree with you about winning on the break and some other elements of luck in 9-ball and 10-ball. Here are some comments about what you said.

... There will always be some degree of luck in 9-Ball or Ten Ball. You can't legislate it out of the game. That is part of the game and sometimes it does make for some exciting things to happen. I have seen the audience reaction when a ball just barely slithers into the hole or the nine ball flies in on the break. Pure bedlam erupts!

No, you can't totally eliminate the luck element, but you can try to minimize it. The purpose of a pool competition should be to identify and reward the person (or persons) who is (are) playing the most skillfully during that event. Excitement for the audience should not be the objective in most competitions; in fact, such excitement sometimes results from ignorance. A three-rail kick safety is beautiful and exciting; a 10-on-the-break for a win is disgusting.​

... The best players usually win and in every tournament I've been going to for 40 years it is ALWAYS the best players who are there at the end. Do you think that's because they are lucky?

It's usually some of the best players there at the end, but not always the one(s) who were really playing most skillfully. They might have been victimized by the luck element.​

We played 9-Ball for a million years and the nine always counted on the break. It was just part of the game. No one complained although we did have many racking wars.

Sure, people have complained. Grady, as one example, campaigned for decades to have rules that minimize the luck element.​

I contend that it is much harder to make the ten on the break than the nine in similar circumstances.

I agree with this statement but not with the inference that the 10 on the break should, therefore, count as a win. In fact, let me even broaden the view a bit here. People often argue that "luck evens out," or winning on a lucky shot, such as a slop-in, is so rare among top players that we shouldn't worry about it. Well, luck may even out over a lifetime, but it need not do so in any given match or tournament. And it's the rareness of the lucky shot that makes it so much more critical. If it happened every second shot, then both players in a match would benefit and suffer fairly equally. But when it happens only rarely, it becomes enormous and can really mean the difference between winning and losing.​

My opinion is that the ability to win on the break should be part of the game. It benefits a player with a strong break and it also can penalize a player who is soft breaking.

The player with the better break (be it forceful or soft) benefits whether or not slopping in a particular ball on the break counts as a win. The player who breaks better will retain control of the table more often and will have better opportunities for run-outs.​

The biggest joke I've seen in the last forty years of rule changes was when they decided that making the eight ball on the break in Eight Ball was no longer a win. Do these people even play pool?

I agree with the rule; and, yes, I play pool.​

... John Morra and Oscar Dominguez (two very good players) just played 179 games of Ten Ball. Do you know how many ten balls were made on the break. ONE! Yes I said just one!

How would you have felt if that one time had come with the score tied 99-99? And as I said before, I disagree that the rareness of the event argues in its favor.​

 

[Melissa Herndon]

Absolutely correct. In my opinion, broadcasters such as ESPN made a joke out of the sport with their TV tables.

I was at the UPA Championships out here at the Bicycle Club. During the regular tournament, the tables were standard Gold Crowns - which are buckets to begin with.

Then - during the semi finals and finals between Corey Deuel and Danny Basovich, and I think Gabe Owen, they set up two tables that had not been used in the tournament. They had absolute buckets - I understand something like 5 1/2" corners - because ESPN thinks their viewers want to see a lot of break and runs.

It was a shame seeing players of this caliber on these joke tables.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I think you should blame that on promoters rather that ESPN. The WPBA is the only organization with a multi-year contract with ESPN (to my knowledge)...and there is nothing in the contract regarding the size of pockets. I have been in meetings with ESPN...and they don't mention pocket size.

I'm sorry to contradict you...but I think that what you stated is popular opinion...and it isn't true...at least not in the case of the WPBA/ESPN relationship.

In the case of the Bicycle Club event...it may be that the production crew requested bigger pockets in order to facilitate more break-and-runs....I don't know. It might make sense if they were trying to fit more games into the hour program. But really...because ESPN has never asked that of the WPBA, it's hard for me to think that they dictated it for any another tournament.

Melissa

 

[Ky Boy]

Hi Chris,

I think you should blame that on promoters rather that ESPN. The WPBA is the only organization with a multi-year contract with ESPN (to my knowledge)...and there is nothing in the contract regarding the size of pockets. I have been in meetings with ESPN...and they don't mention pocket size.

I'm sorry to contradict you...but I think that what you stated is popular opinion...and it isn't true...at least not in the case of the WPBA/ESPN relationship.

In the case of the Bicycle Club event...it may be that the production crew requested bigger pockets in order to facilitate more break-and-runs....I don't know. It might make sense if they were trying to fit more games into the hour program. But really...because ESPN has never asked that of the WPBA, it's hard for me to think that they dictated it for any another tournament.

Melissa

When you really think about it how many break-n-runs do they actually show on TV??? When they come back from commercial you see the score has changed and they let you know that so and so broke and run the last rack. They don't show much but a couple safety battles, a few missed shots, and then the incoming player finishing off the rack.

I didn't mean to quote you but did for no apparent reason. But I do wonder though why ESPN doesn't show more recent events instead of stuff from 8-9 years ago. I have seen some of those matches WAY too many times. Nothing against women's pool but ESPN would see a stronger viewing audience if they showed more stuff from DCC and other top events. JMO


Gary

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

When you really think about it how many break-n-runs do they actually show on TV??? When they come back from commercial you see the score has changed and they let you know that so and so broke and run the last rack. They don't show much but a couple safety battles, a few missed shots, and then the incoming player finishing off the rack.

I didn't mean to quote you but did for no apparent reason. But I do wonder though why ESPN doesn't show more recent events instead of stuff from 8-9 years ago. I have seen some of those matches WAY too many times. Nothing against women's pool but ESPN would see a stronger viewing audience if they showed more stuff from DCC and other top events. JMO


Gary

I don't know for sure but I'm thinking part of the reason is they don't have to pay to run the WPBA stuff. So they go to the archive and show old tournaments because it doesn't cost them anything. No production costs, no residuals, no rights fees.

I agree though. Nothing against the ladies but I do miss seeing the men play. There has been very little if any on the tube lately.

 

[poolhustler]

I started playing on a 9' Metro Tournament Edition with 4" pockets about 2 months ago. It drove me nuts when I first started playing on it. It took about 40 hours of play to get use to the tight pockets. It is hard to make a ball on the break with 4" pockets.

Frank the Barber said that Oscar had a 4" pocket table at home which Ernesto setup. I'm sure this was a HUGE advantage for Oscar. I think if the pockets were 4 1/2" or even 4 1/4" the score would of been much closer and Morra could of won.

I disagree. So, you think that Oscar would have played worse on a table with bigger pockets?? The pockets are not the only deciding factor.

He CONTROLLED the game. Period.

 

[jay helfert]

Given SVB's break this table would probably just make him "only" make 1 or 2 balls per a break instead of 2 or 3 with perfect cueball control. You put SVB on a table like this in a race to 100 against someone like Yang or Orcullo and you will see some packages. Nothing ground breaking, but I dont think you would see less then a 5-pack at least once and alot of 2 and 3 packs off a win.

While John and Oscar are gret players there is definately a level above them and that top echelon would make for a heck of a battle on a table like this.

SVB vs Yang in a race to 60 10-ball on this table, man... that would be intense.

The thing I like about this table, on a loose table with 5 inch buckets if I catch a gear and break well I have a chance to beat anyone in a race to 11. On this table I don't care what gear I catch or how well I am breaking there are players that are better then me and I ain't gonna beat them because I cannot keep them off the table by running a 5 pack a couple times.

Now you're talking. There is another level of players who are a notch above John and Oscar. Not many, but a few. Yang, Orcullo, SVB, Archer, Alcano etc. come to mind. They could play on a table like this and run out with more frequency. Yes for this elite group of players, a table like this is playable.

I'd like to bet anyone any amount that Shane would not make a ball on the break over half the time on this table. I'll even make that bet with Shane if he comes out this way. That bet goes for anyone else who has a big break as well. All they need to do is make a legal break and pocket a ball. We can bet even money every time. $100 a pop. Come and get it! :grin:

 

[jay helfert]

I do as well. I can remember before the Bergman-Morra match that Jay predicted Morra to be the next great thing. He is a great player but I think he seriously needs a 3rd base coach. His dad or someone should have been sitting right behind him the entire match. If possible, he also needed to show up there more than a day in advance of the match.

Morra lost by 20 games - that is 10 mistakes. If he can fix those, he will make a jump to the next level.

He's still maturing as a player. How old is he, 22? His dad was there, not far from the table. But his dad was/is a snooker player first. I watched John play and I saw areas where he could use some good coaching. His play after the break in push out situations was not that good. He made several errors there alone. His kicking is not up to par with the rest of his game. Same for some of his safety play. His tempo was all wrong most of the time. And there are some mental aspects of playing a big money match that he has yet to learn.

Saying all that, I still predict a bright future for John. I wouldn't be surprised to see him win a major tournament in the near future. He pockets balls great and moves the cue ball well. Just a few pieces to the puzzle still missing.

 

[Johnnyt]

Now you're talking. There is another level of players who are a notch above John and Oscar. Not many, but a few. Yang, Orcullo, SVB, Archer, Alcano etc. come to mind. They could play on a table like this and run out with more frequency. Yes for this elite group of players, a table like this is playable.

I'd like to bet anyone any amount that Shane would not make a ball on the break over half the time on this table. I'll even make that bet with Shane if he comes out this way. That bet goes for anyone else who has a big break as well. All they need to do is make a legal break and pocket a ball. We can bet even money every time. $100 a pop. Come and get it! :grin:

You're taking 10-ball racks...right? Johnnyt
PS: If it's rack their own I think I might hire Joe Tucker for the rack ref. lol.

 

[jay helfert]

Jay, I disagree with you about winning on the break and some other elements of luck in 9-ball and 10-ball. Here are some comments about what you said.

Thanks for your opinions on my points. There is one aspect of playing in pool tournaments that people who make rules rarely consider. And it isn't about luck or skill either. It's about composure and guts and the ability to perform under pressure. Some guys have it and some guys don't. There are some damn good players who will never win a big tournament. They can blame it on the rolls or the rules if they want. But that ain't it!

The winners are the guys who have the "right stuff." There IS something that separates the top players at the end of most tournaments. And it has nothing to do with luck! ZERO! The winners are the guys who come with the big shot under pressure. And the losers are the guys who miss that same shot (or play bad position). I've been observing this phenomena for a long, long time. Some guys can reach way down and come with it and some guys have nothing down there to reach for. Someone on another thread said his mentor told him the way to excel was "to be a good person." This is closer to the truth than you might imagine.

Buddy was a winner! Over and over again he overcame all obstacles (even bad rolls or a lucky shot by his opponent). Sigel and Earl the same. They were going to find a way to win. And usually they did. Did anyone see Mika pull out that win over Kiamco last week. He didn't play the best, he just won! He made two tough outs, under pressure, when the whole tournament was on the line. And that's when Warren made a couple of mistakes. Ralf is another winner and so is Dennis. Shane also knows how to cross that finish line. Busti too. It's rarely ever about who got lucky. It's almost always about who had the most HEART!

 

[TATE]

Hi Chris,

I think you should blame that on promoters rather that ESPN. The WPBA is the only organization with a multi-year contract with ESPN (to my knowledge)...and there is nothing in the contract regarding the size of pockets. I have been in meetings with ESPN...and they don't mention pocket size.

I'm sorry to contradict you...but I think that what you stated is popular opinion...and it isn't true...at least not in the case of the WPBA/ESPN relationship.

In the case of the Bicycle Club event...it may be that the production crew requested bigger pockets in order to facilitate more break-and-runs....I don't know. It might make sense if they were trying to fit more games into the hour program. But really...because ESPN has never asked that of the WPBA, it's hard for me to think that they dictated it for any another tournament.

Melissa

I just figured it was ESPN since these were the only taped matches and they set up two completely different tables for it.

By the way, you did a nice job in the booth on the commentary!

Chris

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

we need the old cloth and med size pockets, a balance of those 2 things, not just pocket size, or deep Diamond shelfs

I couldn't agree more Fatboy. With fast cloth everybody has a stroke and it became much easier for more players to run out. Since the game became easier with the only solution to make the game harder was to tighten the pockets.

Going back to slow cloth with 4 1/4" - 4 1/2" pockets will make the game alot tougher since not as many players will have the stroke to get around the table. It will separate the great players from the good players. I would also recommend playing roll out rules to limit the amount of luck in 9 Ball and 10 Ball.

 

[Celtic]

I couldn't agree more Fatboy. With fast cloth everybody has a stroke and it became much easier for more players to run out. Since the game became easier with the only solution to make the game harder was to tighten the pockets.

I don't disagree with Fatboy on the slower cloth but I don't think that it is a "if" "or" type of debate. The best of both worlds would be a slower cloth that makes people need to put some stroke on the ball AND tighter pockets that require that people are STILL accurate when putting that stroke on the ball. The top players should flat out be required to have ALL of the fundamentals at the top, they should not be required to have stroke OR accuracy, the mastery of pool should require mad skills in both. You should be required to put a great stroke on a ball AND do so with tremendous accuracy at the same time.

Only then do we see a rise in the top echelon of pool and see the creation of this sports own Tiger Woods or Federer dominating the sport and in turn increasing the popularity. It is those guys who rise to the top and dominate a sport that lead to increased popularity of that sport, the Palmer/Nickelson/Woods of a sport that people learn about and then want to watch and see what all that hype is about. Pool is hugely lacking in that atm and the ease of playing conditions is a large reason that skill is not allowing people to claim the top spot despite having the most skill.

 

[AtLarge]

... It's about composure and guts and the ability to perform under pressure. ... The winners are the guys who come with the big shot under pressure. ...

Buddy ... Sigel ... Earl ... Mika ... Ralf ... Dennis ... Shand ... Busti .... It's rarely ever about who got lucky. It's almost always about who had the most HEART!

You are certainly correct that performing well under pressure is key. But I don't think that fact negates the points I made about the luck element. Indeed, if the rules were altered to reduce the luck element, the players you named, and others who exhibit the qualities you cited, would win an even higher percentage of the events.

I'm sure that everyone who has played a lot has both won and lost a ton of matches because of purely lucky shots -- 9-ball or 10-ball on the break or slopping in a key ball. A loss that way is agonizing. A win that way is less than fulfilling. It would be so easy to eliminate some of the game's pernicious luck.

 

[mikeyfrost]

I like it alot...keep going y'all!

 

[Rob18]

I noticed a few people commented on John maybe being out of his comfort level playing these big 10k TAR matches and that he's 0-2. Well that's true but he does have a match for 10k that he did win against Jason Kirkwood. Most probably don't know about that. In fact, John is no stranger to big action. When he was at the age of about 8 or 9 he was playing 2-5 hundred dollar sets with stronger players getting weight. I think i can speak for a lot of us here and say that's big action at an older age nevermind at 8 or 9.

Secondly, John made no excuses as for how the table played. I'm a good friend of his and i was there to witness the match and he never once made an excuse for how tough it plays. He's a professional and he knew what he was getting into before the match started. He was simply out of his element with most people rooting for Oscar. That's expected though.

Someone also commented on why he goes out of his element and plays these big races? Well, do you see anyone coming to Canada to play him? No! He's asked all the players his speed and they don't wanna leave their element. I think it shows real heart and determination that he'll do what he has to in order to make himself better and try to beat the home town guys on their turf whether he's the "favorite" or not. He asked Oscar after the match if he would come to Canada to play again and he wouldn't give him an answer. He didnt even want to play at his home room, instead a room 3 hours west where they have a nice tight diamond.

I think we can all see the heart this kid has, along with his outstanding fundamentals. It's only a matter of time until he starts adapting and learning how much better he can be. I mean let's face it, not many players have that calm, collective, classy demeanor around the table. And that smooth stroke, damn! Even Shane will say it doesn't get any straighter than Johns!

John will be back in action, he's not scared. And he won't make excuses if he loses. All i got to say is, if Oscar does want to come to Canada, i'll take John for $500