Pool has a "FATAL FLAW"

[Paul Schofield]

The ability to play a variety of games is in the nature of pool and frankly is one of the things I find appealing and interesting about it.

I am with you. I am for everybody playing pool in any way they like (as long as they play).

In my opinion, organized pool's best chance of succeeding is with the bowling and golf template with one game and one set of rules. Play all the other games on the side.

 

[victorl]

The fatal flaw is what makes pool so unique. Against a good player, getting chances to shoot is not a privelege, its something you have to earn and fight for. Few other sports give you the freedom to play uninhibited by an opponent and also punishes your mistakes as much as pool. And at least for me, the power to turn your opponent into a helpless spectator is the one thing that keeps me coming back for more.

Vic

 

[xpatcan1]

Good one. I don't want to go down this path BUT...alternate breaks only gurantees a player breaks, it does not guarantee that he gets to play. He only hopes to play.

You could alternate breaks with a forced push out every rack?

 

[RackemBilliards]

Pool's future, or at least mine

How about snooker?

I might be wrong about this, but I think until recently snooker has been mostly an elitist sport in England-played largely by the pros and higher income folks and no so much by the 'general public'. It has been very popular among spectators, though that may be waning a bit now. Since the 40s or 50s, pool has not enjoyed the status of a big time sport in this country. Will it ever again? I don't know, but I CAN tell you that it is no closer now than it was when I started in the pool hall business in 1990-it's probably farther away. Pool has enjoyed two popularity booms, once following 'The Hustler', and then again following 'The Color of Money'. Neither time were we able to convert the short term popularity into a long term professional sport akin to golf, tennis, or, crap, even beach volleyball! There's probably several reasons. It's a very difficult game, taking years of dedication to become proficient and that's not good for the 'want it now' generation. The games we play may not be interesting enough for the general population. The image is still dark after all these years, and although we always thought the gambling was a huge negative, the recent poker boom kind of shoots that down doesn't it? All of those things, in my opinion, do not detract from the greatness of pool. Chess, for non or casual players, is hard to understand, difficult to learn, boring to watch, will absolutely never enjoy widespread popularity as a spectator sport-and is one of the GREAT games ever created by mankind. Widespread popularity is rarely the measure of greatness. 'McDonalds' and 'American Idol' are good examples of that. It would be nice if pool could achieve a level in this country where our pro players could make the living they deserve as the best in a sport as widely played as ours. I'm not sure if I will ever see that. As for me? I spent the first 20 years in the pool hall business trying to convince the crowd who didn't want to play pool why they SHOULD want to play. I'm through with that. I hope to spend the next 20 creating an environment and opportunities for those who DO want to play this great sport.

 

[sfleinen]

Folks:

I see a lot of "so, what's wrong with pool?", "what is this fatal flaw?", "so, what do you suggest?" type replies. This is Paul Schofield, folks -- you *know* where he's going with this!

The "Fatal Flaw", you ask? His assertion of "luck on the break." I.e. the requirement that you pocket a ball on the break to retain control of the table is "luck." I.e. "You should not be required to pocket a ball on the break." I.e. Paul Schofield's "No Cornflakes" rules are much better and dispense with pool's "Fatal Flaw."

Are you folks that gullible? I have a nice lime-green JitterBug lure that I'm casting out to you... oooo, doesn't it look delicious? Wanna bite?

-Sean

 

[maidenfreak]

So what do you propose to fix it?

I am not being a smart ass, I am truly interested in your thought's.

I would like to know your thoughts as well.

 

[CJFinkle]

As a recent billiards enthusiast, this thread is quite interesting. I did not realize there were these problems you all are talking about. Assuming the fatal flaw was out the window, would it change the sport all that much?

-CJ

 

[Paul Schofield]

As a recent billiards enthusiast, this thread is quite interesting. I did not realize there were these problems you all are talking about. Assuming the fatal flaw was out the window, would it change the sport all that much?

-CJ

I can only guess but I would say most definately. Remember that pool is not like other sports. It is a game that has yet to find itself. It is in a constant state of flux. If the pool community came to terms with its "FATAL FLAW", it would change the mindset of the game and the direction of the games evolution and development. Maybe a new game would emerge that had universal appeal to novices and pros alike. Golf and bowling each have one game that has universal appeal. Pool has no chance of achieving the same if it protects its "FATAL FLAW".

 

[Paul Schofield]

You could alternate breaks with a forced push out every rack?

This is an excellent idea. I did experiment with this. Players are much more willing to embrace an enabling rule rather than a disabling rule. The pushout rule disabled the shooter. The players would not accept it.

 

[CarlB]

As I read this...I can't help but to wait for a book or a DVD called the "FATAL FLAW" lol.
the caps make me laugh a little everytime.

I think there was a suggestion from someone before about a 14.1 style tournament where people were shooting for either a total ball count in so many innings, or an average high ball run with x amount of attempts. Players could play on tables side by side, or one after another on one table. It would keep the competition feeling while eliminating the one sidedness of running balls like you mentioned.

Thoughts?

Carl

 

[Paul Schofield]

I think there was a suggestion from someone before about a 14.1 style tournament where people were shooting for either a total ball count in so many innings, or an average high ball run with x amount of attempts. Players could play on tables side by side, or one after another on one table. It would keep the competition feeling while eliminating the one sidedness of running balls like you mentioned.

Thoughts?

Carl

Good thinking. Jerry Breisath (a nationally recognized instructor) devoted an gallant effort to a similar concept he devised called Equal Offense. Here is the problem with that: pool players want to play interactive games. They have only anectotal interest in scored games like Bowliards, Stroke Play, and Equal Offense. The players won't play scored games. Players rule.

 

[CarlB]

hmm, good point. since you compare to other sports...what about a pure offense vs defense situation.

Where one player MUST play defensive shots (safeties) while the other attempts to make a good hit off of their safety. I should probably copyright this before putting it out there because the more i think of it, the better it sounds.

Player A Breaks...the player on offense is the breaker (trying to pocket as many balls as he can and eliminate easy defensive play.

Immediately after the break, the defensive player takes his safety shot. The offensive player then attempts to make a good hit on the lowest # ball on the table.

Good hit = +1 point for player A
Bad hit = +1 point for player B
Pocketing the ball = +2 points for player A.

Rinse and repeat. There are a ton of opportunities to take this idea to the next level, i.e. it would force people to get better at safety plays.
It eliminates the "running" of balls.
Every shot is the other player.
Banking and kicking are renewed and not just for bank pool.

Thoughts?

Carl

 

[CarlB]

I really like my idea...if anyone steals it...ya better give me credit. lmao.

In fact...I think I am going to work up a full game list of rules.

Carl

 

[Wags]

I agree that pool is one of the few games that you can lose without ever playing or getting any kind of a shot at playing.

Perfect games are difficult. Rarely does an opponent not get a chance at the table. That said......

To take that element out of the game and make a fair playing field, I used to think about a giant pin-setter like in bowling (s'pose in pool in would be a ball-setter). I have up-graded my thought as the computer age came about.

So, One player breaks the balls and a laser scans the table (I think of it as a big bar code scanner like a medical imaging device) and precisely remembers where every ball is. The breaker then tries to run the rack. Maybe the breaker gets a point for every ball made plus a bonus for completing the run-out. The computer then shows the referee where the balls were after the break and the opponent gets the same chance. The break would be alternating.

We now have a game with equal opportunity. The players start with the same lay-out, although they may play the pattern differently. Easy enough to add "no-luck" rules for the pros. It's all offense. It's about making the shot that your opponent misses. The better shot-maker, that day, will win just like in golf.

Can you see the TV with a split screen showing how the first player played the run while the opponent is making their run? Strengths and weaknesses would show up pretty quick. Missed shapes, breakouts, different approaches and patterns could be analyzed.

I am looking for someone with the expertise to make a prototype. I would think that with today's technology that it is possible.

Note: it could be used for almost any cuesport game (with some modification of rules) on any table with the most glaring exception of one-pocket.

C'mon guys, give me some constructive feedback, good or bad.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I once experimented with what would be on paper the perfect game. I would describe it as 1 and stop straight pool. Play with a full rack of 15 balls and the first player to make 8 wins. You can only make 1 ball and then you give the table up to an opponent. Just imagine the strategy. Here was the problem: Many skills typically used in most games were eliminated. Thinking 2, 3, and 4 balls ahead was renderred moot. Running balls is fun. Being limited to only 1 ball took a lot of the fun out of the game.

 

[CarlB]

I agree that pool is one of the few games that you can lose without ever playing or getting any kind of a shot at playing.

Perfect games are difficult. Rarely does an opponent not get a chance at the table. That said......

To take that element out of the game and make a fair playing field, I used to think about a giant pin-setter like in bowling (s'pose in pool in would be a ball-setter). I have up-graded my thought as the computer age came about.

So, One player breaks the balls and a laser scans the table (I think of it as a big bar code scanner like a medical imaging device) and precisely remembers where every ball is. The breaker then tries to run the rack. Maybe the breaker gets a point for every ball made plus a bonus for completing the run-out. The computer then shows the referee where the balls were after the break and the opponent gets the same chance. The break would be alternating.

We now have a game with equal opportunity. The players start with the same lay-out, although they may play the pattern differently. Easy enough to add "no-luck" rules for the pros. It's all offense. It's about making the shot that your opponent misses. The better shot-maker, that day, will win just like in golf.

Can you see the TV with a split screen showing how the first player played the run while the opponent is making their run? Strengths and weaknesses would show up pretty quick. Missed shapes, breakouts, different approaches and patterns could be analyzed.

I am looking for someone with the expertise to make a prototype. I would think that with today's technology that it is possible.

Note: it could be used for almost any cuesport game (with some modification of rules) on any table with the most glaring exception of one-pocket.

C'mon guys, give me some constructive feedback, good or bad.

As Mr. Paul stated... "Here is the problem with that: pool players want to play interactive games. They have only anectotal interest in scored games like Bowliards, Stroke Play, and Equal Offense. The players won't play scored games. Players rule."

I think your game would take the "interactive" part out.

JMHO
Carl

 

[CarlB]

I think your catch 22 then would be that you can not keep the aspect of running balls AND eliminate the aspect of your opponent sitting. It wont happen.

I think my offensive/defensive game would work, you wouldn't be thinking multi-ball runs. but you emphasis the offense and defensive nature of the game. Each player would be shooting often, and would get equal opportunity to play offense and defense.

You lag and the winner picks offense or defense first.

Come on, you gotta admit its intriguing...like I said, the more I think of it, the more I like it.

Carl

 

[Wags]

hmm, good point. since you compare to other sports...what about a pure offense vs defense situation.

Where one player MUST play defensive shots (safeties) while the other attempts to make a good hit off of their safety. I should probably copyright this before putting it out there because the more i think of it, the better it sounds.

Player A Breaks...the player on offense is the breaker (trying to pocket as many balls as he can and eliminate easy defensive play.

Immediately after the break, the defensive player takes his safety shot. The offensive player then attempts to make a good hit on the lowest # ball on the table.

Good hit = +1 point for player A
Bad hit = +1 point for player B
Pocketing the ball = +2 points for player A.

Rinse and repeat. There are a ton of opportunities to take this idea to the next level, i.e. it would force people to get better at safety plays.
It eliminates the "running" of balls.
Every shot is the other player.
Banking and kicking are renewed and not just for bank pool.

Thoughts?

Carl

Actually, I use that game when teaching safeties. The guy playing defense can only win by 3 fouling the offensive player. But I like your point approach.

 

[Ron F]

Billiard Curling

I may (or may not) have the FATAL FLAW solution. I propose Billiard Curling, which would be similar to the winter Olympic sport in some ways.

For all practical purposes, the only rule change for the shooter would be that every shot must be hit softly. When the shooter is at the table, however, his opponent will be on defense. While on defense the opponent is equipped with a table brush attached to a long handle. The job when playing defense is to brush the nap of the table vigorously in front of your opponent's ball as it progresses toward the pocket in an effort to change the direction of the ball enough for it to miss or come up short of the pocket. Shouting and yelling will be allowed by the defensive player, as will blowing on the ball in an effort to change its' course, but only after the ball has been struck. To make this new sport far more interesting, a return to the 80/20 high nap cloth will be in order.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idSdnubrlds

 

[Wags]

As Mr. Paul stated... "Here is the problem with that: pool players want to play interactive games. They have only anectotal interest in scored games like Bowliards, Stroke Play, and Equal Offense. The players won't play scored games. Players rule."

I think your game would take the "interactive" part out.

JMHO
Carl

If it drew an audience and there was money in it...you can bet the pros would play it.

Actually it is interactive with the split screen. The players just aren't playing at exactly the same time but they are playing under exactly the same conditions.