Stevie Moore's Rules argument with Justin

[tshughes]

Great point! I've been watching all kinds of pool tournaments for going on four decades and some how, some way, the best players ALWAYS get there in the end. A weaker player NEVER lucks his way into the final seven or eight players. And I'll tell you why. Pool on the highest levels is more about character and heart. It takes courage to win big matches. Luck just won't cut it.

Thanks Jay, and I agree! Luck is not something that will make you a top player and win a lot of tournaments period. If you think your going to luck your way through the US Open or any other big tournament then I want to watch that for sure. Top players will come out ahead in long races due to skill, practice, dedication, and yes heart! I think it is more of a way for people to simply say hey he got lucky! Instead of facing the facts the guy may have more heart, dedication, and at that time skill. Luck may win him a couple of racks but I do not think he is gonna beat you in a long race to eleven or so if he is without a doubt less skilled. He would indeed have to be one lucky............!!!!!

 

[SUPERSTAR]

I just hope the "rule makers" and the players wake up before it's too late. They are going in the wrong direction here. If they think there isn't luck in golf or tennis at the highest levels they haven't been paying attention. How many lucky bounces has Tiger got in his career, and he's still the best player. Right?

Jay, with all due respect.
Golf and pool are two completely different entities.
The luck between the two cannot be compared as golf is an individual pursuit, and in professional play, you NEVER have to shoot a shot that you didn't leave for yourself. In regards to the shots you take, you are in complete control of your fate and do not have to deal with bad lies, sand traps, and water hazards because OTHER people left you there after they were done shooting and you had to continue from those spots. But that happens all the time in pool.

Tiger was never forced to shoot his shots, frozen to the bark of the wrong side of a tree, because ANOTHER golfer had left the ball there off the T-shot.
And the luck issue has absolutely nothing to do with who the best player is or not.

If Tiger got stuck on the wrong side of the tree countless times because he had to shoot after someone else shot, from where they left him, i can guarantee you that he would not have as many championships as he has today.

In pool.
No incoming player should be penalized and be forced to shoot when hooked by a MISTAKE.
Penalize the player who MADE the mistake.

Weaker players aren't going to go anywhere.
Anyone who has ever been addicted to pool, knows that the weaker players are going to want to get better, REGARDLESS of if the luck rules are there or not.

 

[tshughes]

Jay, with all due respect.
Golf and pool are two completely different entities.
The luck between the two cannot be compared as golf is an individual pursuit, and in professional play, you NEVER have to shoot a shot that you didn't leave for yourself. In regards to the shots you take, you are in complete control of your fate and do not have to deal with bad lies, sand traps, and water hazards because OTHER people left you there after they were done shooting and you had to continue from those spots. But that happens all the time in pool.

Tiger was never forced to shoot his shots, frozen to the bark of the wrong side of a tree, because ANOTHER golfer had left the ball there off the T-shot.
And the luck issue has absolutely nothing to do with who the best player is or not.

If Tiger got stuck on the wrong side of the tree countless times because he had to shoot after someone else shot, from where they left him, i can guarantee you that he would not have as many championships as he has today.

In pool.
No incoming player should be penalized and be forced to shoot when hooked by a MISTAKE.
Penalize the player who MADE the mistake.

Weaker players aren't going to go anywhere.
Anyone who has ever been addicted to pool, knows that the weaker players are going to want to get better, REGARDLESS of if the luck rules are there or not.

Superstar I agree with you in a sense about the hooked by mistake thing. But look at it this way......the thing that separates the pro and the average player is dedication to learning new things. A pro has the skill set needed to get out of a hook in most cases. More than likely he will overcome a lucky hook. Even if he does not and looses one rack....how many times in a long race do you think the lower skilled player is going to be able to accidentally hook him and win. If he is hooking him that many times and he wins a long race...the fact might remain that the man was simply a better player. My point is why make the game easier and say hey if your trapped we will just give you a couple of tries....why not make people practice and get better at situation even if it was not intended. Those who have that kind of dedication will go far in any sport or life.......sometimes you have to exceed above what is asked of you and go an extra mile. Like I said this is just my opinion and not trying to start an argument....just having civil conversation.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[SUPERSTAR]

A pro has the skill set needed to get out of a hook in most cases. More than likely he will overcome a lucky hook.

This is a naive statement.
Having the skill set to overcome a hook by hitting a ball, is in no way representative of overcoming a lucky hook.
Someone might make a good hit and sell out.
It happens ALL THE TIME!

 

[SUPERSTAR]

If you look at the argument/discussion on the stream, you can see the distinction in sides making the argument.

You have a high level professional player named Stevie Moore arguing for removing luck from a players perspective. And he is arguing in the booth with 2 people who are NOT high level professional players. No offense to Justin or Jay, but it's the truth, and they have presented arguments that lucky rules would be better for one reason or another.

Traditionally, it's the lesser or non-players that want to keep luck in the game. That might sound elitist, but it's true.
And that just goes back to Stevie's "people who can't play" comment. Which might get some people bent out of shape, but it is also most likely true.
The top players would most likely embrace the no luck rules.
Crappy players who have the pipe dream of competing, don't like those rules.
Luck might have it's place in local weekly handicapped events, where you are trying to make it fair for everyone competing and you want to keep the masses happy, but luck has no place in professional caliber events.
Simple as that.

Believe me, Stevie is right. Give it a few years, and the there will be more pool tournaments then ever with the no luck rules.

 

[Joe_Jaguar]

Talk about changing the rules too much, wait till Matchroom's World Pool Masters when they use the ridiculous rule that three balls have to go past the head string on the break. You make two balls on the break but a third doesn't go past the head string, and then you have to turn the table over. What a bastardization of the rules based on the ignorant notion that you should have to slam balls on the break. What turns off the fans more, a rack not being slammed or a rule change that goes against every notion\understanding they have ever had about how break rules are?! Pathetic :speechless:

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

If you look at the argument/discussion on the stream, you can see the distinction in sides making the argument.

You have a high level professional player named Stevie Moore arguing for removing luck from a players perspective. And he is arguing in the booth with 2 people who are NOT high level professional players. No offense to Justin or Jay, but it's the truth, and they have presented arguments that lucky rules would be better for one reason or another.

Traditionally, it's the lesser or non-players that want to keep luck in the game. That might sound elitist, but it's true.
And that just goes back to Stevie's "people who can't play" comment. Which might get some people bent out of shape, but it is also most likely true.
The top players would most likely embrace the no luck rules.
Crappy players who have the pipe dream of competing, don't like those rules.
Luck might have it's place in local weekly handicapped events, where you are trying to make it fair for everyone competing and you want to keep the masses happy, but luck has no place in professional caliber events.
Simple as that.

Believe me, Stevie is right. Give it a few years, and the there will be more pool tournaments then ever with the no luck rules.

Regardless if you subscribe to this position, it doesn't necessarily mean it would overall be good for the game. I personally think the game is more boring to watch with SBE rules.

Fewer spectators = smaller purses.

IMO, it's just the next way pros can shoot themselves in the foot and further ensure the game won't grow.

 

[hang-the-9]

The argument i heard was that Stevie was arguing for the call shot rules, and that Justin was arguing that the crowd would not like the call shot no luck rules, Where Stevie didn't care what the crowd wanted, he wanted what was best for the players playing the game. i.e., NO LUCK!

I heard this discussion and never did Stevie say anything that he "did not care what the crowd wanted". He just said the call shot rules were better for the player, and I think he agreed that the other way was better for the masses. And the masses we are probably talking about all the WPBA watching buffoons that clap at every ... single ... shot that is made no matter if it was a 4-rail crap shot, a bad safe or some-one misscued.

I'm not sure why the thread starter is so up in arms over this. Although I do have to say Stevie sounds like a King of the Hill character to my Yankee ears.

 

[catscradle]

Too me this whole thread and the luck vs. no-luck argument is just a "tempest in a teapot". This is the same argument they have about APA 8-ball. Hack or pro allowing luck makes very little, if any, difference in the final outcome of a match. The better the competitors the less difference allowing luck makes, the better player will win in the long run.
As far as it's effect on the viable of pool is concerned, pool is a boring enough entertainment without resurrecting the 2 foul rule. As it is now only avid pool players like the people on here watch pool matches, make it slower and even some of the current fans will be lost.
JMHO,
Steve.

 

[hang-the-9]

Regardless if you subscribe to this position, it doesn't necessarily mean it would overall be good for the game. I personally think the game is more boring to watch with SBE rules.

Fewer spectators = smaller purses.

IMO, it's just the next way pros can shoot themselves in the foot and further ensure the game won't grow.

If people wanted to see balls go in pockets, straight pool would be the #1 game. I don't think finding the "right rules" or the "right game" for spectators will do anything as they already have a core of pool players that watch and I don't think ANYTHING the pool world tries will work to get new viewers except change the whole format of what goes on during the games. For example, if word gets out that the US Open had women as well as men, new people will watch. I think the only reason that the WPBA is on ESPN and the men are not is that people say "girls playing pool, really?" and watch for a bit. Soon as the men are on actually playing and not shooting trick shots people say "ah, bunch of hustler pool sharks are on, booorrinng" and switch to Baywatch.

 

[Beer:30]

Is getting left hooked any worse than never getting to the table on account of a break and run by the other guy/girl? How is it competition if you lose without taking a shot? What does your reaction to a "lucky" hook say about you and your game? I don't see a game that needs a rule change. I see events that need longer sets. There is variability in the game. If the sets are short and the player skill level close then there will be luck involved. What about the person that plays their speed so that the other player is hooked if they miss? Can't happen every shot but why punish that person?

 

[qbilder]

If you want to negate luck, then get better.

Efren, Johnny, Earl, Buddy, Ray, Miz, etc. all became top champions because they were the best, not because they were lucky. They conquered & overcame luck because they were good enough to do so. But it never lasts forever. No champion stays champion forever. It's facts of life. And if you aren't champion, it's because you aren't good enough. Simple stuff.

 

[trustyrusty]

The other day on a par 5 I fired my 3rd shot over the green and chipped in from 20 yards, my partner went nuts, my opponent cheered. When I got into the club house I collected $40 for a skin.


My question is, why the difference? I wasn't seriously trying to make the chip on the par 5, I just trying to get it close, but in one case luck is cheered and in the other it's heavily frowned upon.

I wanna play in your group is all I can say!! I play in the same 16 man group every Sat and Sun morning (for 12 years now), and can't remember the last time a birdie held up for a skin on a par 5 An eagle is USUALLY good, but not guarunteed...lol.

 

[Pushout]

Instead of arguing about what the rules should be in an obviously flawed game, why don't you guys learn how to play a more complete test of skills like One Pocket?

Actually, I began to play much more One Pocket in the late '90s for this exact reason. It was all I played except for the weekly Saturday 9 ball tournament, that and a little Straight Pool. I've had some problems finding someone who plays it anywhere near my speed since I moved to South Carolina.
After thinking about it for a while, I would be in favor of leaving 9 Ball the way it is and moving on to 10 Ball with the rules used at the SBE. I would favor making the 10 ball on the break a win, however. Somebody above said they watched an entire weekend of Ten Ball and only saw a few 10 balls go in on the break.

 

[Doug]

Lucky or no lucky

It seems to me this thread started due to the fact there isn't much (enough) money in pool for pros to make a living doing it based on skill let alone having someone, especially a weaker player, get lucky and score a win. There are obviously many ways to do this. Rank all players at sign up and anyone who makes it to the final sixteen that isn't in the top ten ranking has to forfeit because they had to get lucky to get that far. Also takes rooting for the underdog out of the picture. Who really wants to see the wild card draw win anyway. Raise the entry fees to $500-1000 minimums or more. Keeps anyone who has to rely on luck from even considering entering. Makes payouts higher for the real players from being jeporadized too. Fielding a full tournament would be easier because only pros would enter and since lucky rolls would not be acceptable the integrity of the game would remain intact. High entry fees shouldn't be an impediment because there are enough stakehorses who bet thousands on a match between just two people would certainly make their money available for their horse to win if it only cost $500-1000 to enter. All they ever want is a level playing field. In fact you may could eliminate playing the final sixteen by taking another ranking poll and distribute the payouts accordingly because it would be ovious to everyone that #16 choice would have to get lucky to beat #1 choice.

 

[Koop]

To me, this is the equivalent of the APA not allowing a push rule in 9 ball.
Drives me EFFIN crazy.

 

[RobertR]

It seems to me this thread started due to the fact there isn't much (enough) money in pool for pros to make a living doing it based on skill let alone having someone, especially a weaker player, get lucky and score a win. There are obviously many ways to do this. Rank all players at sign up and anyone who makes it to the final sixteen that isn't in the top ten ranking has to forfeit because they had to get lucky to get that far. Also takes rooting for the underdog out of the picture. Who really wants to see the wild card draw win anyway. Raise the entry fees to $500-1000 minimums or more. Keeps anyone who has to rely on luck from even considering entering. Makes payouts higher for the real players from being jeporadized too. Fielding a full tournament would be easier because only pros would enter and since lucky rolls would not be acceptable the integrity of the game would remain intact. High entry fees shouldn't be an impediment because there are enough stakehorses who bet thousands on a match between just two people would certainly make their money available for their horse to win if it only cost $500-1000 to enter. All they ever want is a level playing field. In fact you may could eliminate playing the final sixteen by taking another ranking poll and distribute the payouts accordingly because it would be ovious to everyone that #16 choice would have to get lucky to beat #1 choice.

LOL. Someone actually got it.

I was never 'up in arms' over this, just pointed out the fact that Stevie's argument for trying to remove luck from the game is elitist at best, and bad for the game at worst.

And I'll say it again, Earl has been complaining about stuff like this for years and frankly, drove him to near madness (and before you flame me, I'm happy he seems to have his head on straight lately, he's good for the game).

I wish the professionals were playing for 6 figure purses every weekend, I wish it was on TV, I wish the general public appreciated the hardness of the game.

That being said, I wish some pros would stop trying to change the rotation game to the point where the players that 'can't play' don't have a shot to win. It's counter productive in my opinion.

 

[Maniac]

To me, this is the equivalent of the APA not allowing a push rule in 9 ball.
Drives me EFFIN crazy.

Me too (but it's a very short drive :thumbup!!!

Maniac

 

[Big Perm]

Ahhh, the luck discussion....fun, fun, fun....:thumbup:

To dismiss luck in any game at any level is a little naive IMHO....

In pool:

Ever see a player clearly mishit the ball, know they mishit it, they start to walk away from the table, it hugs the rail and falls anyway....or maybe they play the perfect shot, the ball hits a piece of chalk or something, and rolls off behind another ball......or they completely blow their leave - they miss it so bad they end up getting the perfect angle in another pocket....

Regardless of skill level, luck exists.....somedays you can do no wrong, and somedays you get a little unlucky....it happens....

Same thing in all professional sports:

Golf - you can hit a shot so bad, it caroms off a house and on the green
Soccer - goalie slips and misses an easy save
Baseball - you cork one off the end of the bat for a single
Tennis - you mishit the ball so bad, it lands on the other side and spins off a crazy direction
Football - kicker boots the ball so bad on a 25 yard fieldgoal it knuckes, catches the post, and somehow bouces through....

As far as the money, pace of play and lack of showy offensive shots causes people to tune out.....that simple....that and the negative press pros get from cutting up events and dumping....