Unacceptable 14.1 Worlds

[AtLarge]

I gave up on watching the final match, too late for me. I think that the race to 200 for the final 16 was more than was necessary. A race to 150 with the finals being a race to 200 would be fine with me.

The games were to 200 for the round of 32 players as well, not just 16.

But if they are going to have a single-elimination stage, I want the games to be long -- and I don't think 150 is long enough.

For example, how would you like to be a player who went undefeated in the round-robin stage (won 7 matches in a row and played demonstrably better than anyone else in the event), and then in your first match of the single-elimination stage had your opponent run 150 and out after your opening break? You might even have made a great opening break shot, but were unlucky enough to have one of the two corner object balls roll back into the rack in a dead combo for your opponent. So you're out of the event despite being the player who has been playing the best 14.1 all week.

I know, such a situation is unlikely, right? But the shorter the races, the more likely it is that something weird will happen to eliminate someone.

 

[MitchDAZB]

The fact that CW et al decided to change the format, in the middle of the tournament, does not bode well for a "professional" image, imo.

The change in the format was due to the day lost to the hurricane, wasn't it?

 

[AtLarge]

The event(s) are held at indoor venues. It's not like golf for instance, where they have to contend with weather conditions. ...

Weather conditions (hurricane) led to the postponement of the start of play from Sunday afternoon to Monday morning.

 

[BobTfromIL]

I think once you get to the elimination stage your performance in the round robin is meaningless, all it did was get you in. If your opponent runs 150 or 200 and you never get a shot that's how the game goes. I thought that 200 for the final 32 (16 single elimination matches) was excessive. I was also glad to see the shot clock kick in when the matches started running long.

 

[Island Drive]

I think once you get to the elimination stage your performance in the round robin is meaningless, all it did was get you in. If your opponent runs 150 or 200 and you never get a shot that's how the game goes. I thought that 200 for the final 32 (16 single elimination matches) was excessive. I was also glad to see the shot clock kick in when the matches started running long.

Add to that the wee hrs of the morning and the quality of play diminishes.

 

[AtLarge]

... There were several matches that spanned 5 hrs. That too is ridiculous. ...

Scott, some of the streamed matches went 4 hours, but none went 5. I don't know whether any non-streamed match(es) went 5 hours.

But in planning the schedule for a 14.1 event, I think the organizers need to allow an hour for each 100 balls that could be pocketed in a match -- 2 hours for a game to 100, 3 hours for a game to 150, and 4 hours for a game to 200. Sure, you might get Thorsten running 100 and out off the opponent's break, and the match lasts 25 minutes, but you're also going to get some close matches with slower players.

With one of the quarter-final matches pushed to the final day, along with two semi-final matches and the final match -- all on a single table and with Williams and Davis being 2 of the 5 players still alive for the final day -- it was a pretty good bet that it would run very late. I still enjoyed watching every minute, but I fully recognize that such late play is not in the best interest of the players or the spectators (or those watching the stream!).

 

[AtLarge]

... You start off the week with 64 guys, let them play round robin, THEN you still have 32 guys, start a double elimination tournament at *noon Thursday, matches to 200, expecting to end at a reasonable hour on Friday?!

That's nuts. ...

It was single elimination, not double, starting (I think) at about 10AM Thursday.

 

[3andstop]

45 seconds isn't enough time to shoot some shots or play some safeties. On the other hand 10 seconds is longer than needed on some shots.

I've been an advocate of using chess clocks forever. It's is not fair to call the clock on some people and not others.

A few years ago they had a few people on the clock at one time and didn't have any other volunteers to time other tables that were playing even slower than the ones being timed.

Has this chess clock idea been tried? Seems like a logical solution, perhaps with some modifications. I can see racing back and forth to your chair in the last portion of a game, and that's not straight pool either.

Maybe something like ... in a 150 point game, the clock is used in the beginning, with whatever amount of time is deemed appropriate. Then, 10 minutes is added to your time at 100 balls, and it goes off for you after reaching 125. From say 125 to the end of the game you're not on the clock at all anymore.

Additionally, some alternate penalty could be used if you time out in a game. For example, 15 point foul and re-rack with the first violation of the allotted time. 10 minutes added, and the second time out is loss of game.

I'm just saying there are endless creative ways to make the chess clock the way to go for timing a game.

 

[Mickey Qualls]

Weather conditions (hurricane) led to the postponement of the start of play from Sunday afternoon to Monday morning.

You're right, I didn't think about the hurricane.

My thought process was geared more toward the type of weather that usually suspends a type of sport 'already in progress'. A golf match, baseball game, or any other outdoor sport can have a 'rain delay' until it's over and play can proceed.

For pool, the same type of rain that can stop a golf match cold wouldn't affect a pool tournament the same way.

 

[kaznj]

Someone suggested that the tournament should have run through Saturday. I believe this was not an option. I think the hotel booked an affair for Saturday. The room was not available for Saturday.
Can someone post how the matches would have been different if they had played to only 150 instead of 200 in the first 3 rounds of single elimination. How many matches would have had different winners? This would be interesting to see.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Can someone post how the matches would have been different if they had played to only 150 instead of 200 in the first 3 rounds of single elimination. How many matches would have had different winners? This would be interesting to see.

Hi Kaz. Not sure anybody would have that level of detail (who crossed 150 first) for all those matches, but even if they did, I don't think it would tell the whole story. I think both the favorites and underdogs "play to the score" a lot - i.e., it's easier for the underdog to get to 150 first when he knows all that matters is getting to 200. Then he'll start to dog it at around 170 rather than 120, you know? And the favorites, once their back is to the wall (whether it's when their opponent is at 110 in a race to 150, or 160 in a race to 200), they know how to win from there.

The above is obviously a generalization but I feel it holds true a lot. Just my opinion of course.

As to the OP's complaint of the late play of the event, this was almost entirely due to the hurricane. Could they have done some things differently? For sure. Allowing Charlie and Johnny to play Friday morning, rather than Thursday night, was a doomed decision. It held everything back by four hours. They had some choices to avoid this, none of them great. Some possibilities were races to 175 in first three rounds of single-elimination or making Charlie and Johnny at least begin their match on Thursday night.

- Steve

 

[stevekur1]

One thing you will also notice that all the matches on Friday were played on the TV Table for us the fans that bought the PPV... which i thought was pretty sweet and that i definitely got my monies worth from the PPV since i couldn't make it to the venue.

Steve

 

[CreeDo]

I totally disagree with this part of your post. ALL sports rely totally on spectators to create value, gate, vendor sales, increase in youth play and success too be accepted by the public. By not addressing their needs, you're actually hurting the game, the players and the potential increase in prize funds down the road. It's selfish to only think of the players. Our sport in the states needs all the help it can get to be accepted in our current social climate and future.

It's cool if that's your personal goal, but it's not mine and I don't think the majority of players see it that way. 99% of the players out there are hitting balls for fun and don't know who efren is. Like them, my primary goal in pool is to enjoy playing it. Working to increase pool's popularity as a national/international sport... that's not even on the radar.

Maybe that comes off as selfish, but if you look at how pool tournaments endure despite negative profit margins and few spectators... it becomes clear they exist because a handful of people who love the game want to see the best players in the world shoot at their top speed. And the players themselves want to know if they can beat the best. That's pretty much it, no deeper motive exists nor is one needed. Berry Behrman doesn't keep running the US Open at a loss because he expects all that money to come back to him someday, or because he's sure this year we finally work out something with ESPN and get famous.

I feel like there's this "We gotta do something about pool!" mentality, but honestly, maybe this is just as popular as it's going to get given the current state of civilization. We have more sports and diversions and distractions to sweat than mosconi did when he was packing the stands. People think differently now. Maybe there aren't any changes we can make to bring pool to the level it enjoyed 50-100 years ago.

All I know is, I'm not gonna sacrifice the player's needs to improve the fan experience because I know there's no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. It's not like... "if only we change this, this, and this rule... and the players all agree to do this... pool will explode like poker and we'll be on TV and it'll be bigger than golf someday!". I've come to accept that pool is inherently a bit dull as a spectator sport and that's ok. I can still enjoy playing it. Chess is boring for most people to watch also but it's still doing ok after about a thousand years.

 

[AtLarge]

... Can someone post how the matches would have been different if they had played to only 150 instead of 200 in the first 3 rounds of single elimination. How many matches would have had different winners? This would be interesting to see.

I doubt that anyone here will have the data to answer that. I can give you a partial answer. The total number of single-elimination matches was 31 (28 in the 3 rounds you asked about). Eight of those 31 matches were streamed -- 4 each day. I tuned in to the first of those 8 matches too late to know whether 150 vs. 200 would have made a difference. But for the other 7 streamed matches, I was watching, and the eventual winner at 200 was also the first to reach 150.

But, obviously, it need not be that way. Three of those 7 matches were extremely close when the first player hit 150. In one of the semi-final matches, Hohmann was behind 142-11 when he produced a great run to take the lead and eventually win.

History proves the point. In 2010, Archer was the first to 150 against Ortmann, but Ortmann beat Archer to 200 and eventually won the tournament. In the championship match in 2009, Immonen was the first to 150 against Cohen, but Cohen won the match.

So 200 can make, and has made, a huge difference in the tournament outcome.

 

[Eddie Robin]

All Things Can Be Improved!

Working to increase pool's popularity as a national/international sport... that's not even on the radar.

I feel like there's this "We gotta do something about pool!" mentality, but honestly, maybe this is just as popular as it's going to get given the current state of civilization. We have more sports and diversions and distractions to sweat than mosconi did when he was packing the stands. People think differently now. Maybe there aren't any changes we can make to bring pool to the level it enjoyed 50-100 years ago.

There are various ways to increase the popularity of a game the main one being to increase understanding of the sport in question. People turn away from that which they don't understand. My books on one-pocket increased understanding and the game made a great come-back from being close to extinct. I do give credit to Grady Mathews for keeping that game alive until my books came out and One-Pocket.dot org for maintaining ever since.

As for tournament formats, there are ways to run round-robins that would work quite well but I've found others unwilling to learn how that could be done. I then decided I might as well try to sell triple elimination for top-level 14.1 tournaments for those that have 3 losses in games of 125 or, better yet, 150 points have almost no chance of winning. Even the great Mosconi in his prime could have gotten knocked out in his first or second single-elimination of 200-point games. No room here for all the reasons and explanations as to why 200-point games are too lengthy.

Shot clocks, if done in a logical manner is obviously the way to go; notice i've emphasized the word "logical".

One current champ per year or every six months and the great game of 14.1 may actually get back to where it once was, with a few other improvements of course. I've noticed several extremely logical contributors on AzBilliards and hope they are well supported; support the wrong guys and the game got no chance to regain its former glory. Once again i'd like to mention that those that do more good than harm should be supported.

Those that produced the recent 14.1 tournament, Dragon Promotions, belong in that category. Now it's a matter of all of us learning from past mistakes for continual improvement and greater rewards for all.

I'm not well educated and not a very strong vocabulary. I've just back to alter ending to end of first paragraph as follows; for maintaining its continued progress ever since. (Previous wording just might have caused one to think the game has not been continually increasing in popularity in recent years.)

 

[macguy]

It's cool if that's your personal goal, but it's not mine and I don't think the majority of players see it that way. 99% of the players out there are hitting balls for fun and don't know who efren is. Like them, my primary goal in pool is to enjoy playing it. Working to increase pool's popularity as a national/international sport... that's not even on the radar.

Maybe that comes off as selfish, but if you look at how pool tournaments endure despite negative profit margins and few spectators... it becomes clear they exist because a handful of people who love the game want to see the best players in the world shoot at their top speed. And the players themselves want to know if they can beat the best. That's pretty much it, no deeper motive exists nor is one needed. Berry Behrman doesn't keep running the US Open at a loss because he expects all that money to come back to him someday, or because he's sure this year we finally work out something with ESPN and get famous.

I feel like there's this "We gotta do something about pool!" mentality, but honestly, maybe this is just as popular as it's going to get given the current state of civilization. We have more sports and diversions and distractions to sweat than mosconi did when he was packing the stands. People think differently now. Maybe there aren't any changes we can make to bring pool to the level it enjoyed 50-100 years ago.

All I know is, I'm not gonna sacrifice the player's needs to improve the fan experience because I know there's no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow. It's not like... "if only we change this, this, and this rule... and the players all agree to do this... pool will explode like poker and we'll be on TV and it'll be bigger than golf someday!". I've come to accept that pool is inherently a bit dull as a spectator sport and that's ok. I can still enjoy playing it. Chess is boring for most people to watch also but it's still doing ok after about a thousand years.

I think you are not giving the game of pool enough credit. In an age where everything is technologically over produced from the way we get information to the way we make a piece of toast, pool has survived. A table, balls and a stick and that is all the game is and it is still around. No electronic score keepers, robots racking the balls, laser guided hats. The tables don't light up when you make a ball or buzz like a pinball machine.

A table, some balls and a stick and the game has remained unchanged almost from the beginning. Sure there are improvements in cloth and balls etc. but the game and the play of it has not changed. It gains new players every day and old player play the game from the time they discover it till they die. It requires no gimmicks or gizmos, the game it's self is enough. It is a sport, a pass time and even a subculture for those who for what ever reason have built their lives around it. I think that is quite thing in today's short term, throw away, instant gratification world.

 

[lfigueroa]

There are various ways to increase the popularity of a game the main one being to increase understanding of the sport in question. People turn away from that which they don't understand. My books on one-pocket increased understanding and the game made a great come-back from being close to extinct. I do give credit to Grady Mathews for keeping that game alive until my books came out and One-Pocket.dot org for maintaining ever since.

As for tournament formats, there are ways to run round-robins that would work quite well but I've found others unwilling to learn how that could be done. I then decided I might as well try to sell triple elimination for top-level 14.1 tournaments for those that have 3 losses in games of 125 or, better yet, 150 points have almost no chance of winning. Even the great Mosconi in his prime could have gotten knocked out in his first or second single-elimination of 200-point games. No room here for all the reasons and explanations as to why 200-point games are too lengthy.

Shot clocks, if done in a logical manner is obviously the way to go; notice i've emphasized the word "logical".

One current champ per year or every six months and the great game of 14.1 may actually get back to where it once was, with a few other improvements of course. I've noticed several extremely logical contributors on AzBilliards and hope they are well supported; support the wrong guys and the game got no chance to regain its former glory. Once again i'd like to mention that those that do more good than harm should be supported.

Those that produced the recent 14.1 tournament, Dragon Promotions, belong in that category. Now it's a matter of all of us learning from past mistakes for continual improvement and greater rewards for all.

If I recall correctly your books came out in '93 and '96, respectively. Are you saying that your two books were responsible for the resurgence of 1pocket?

Lou Figueroa

 

[Eddie Robin]

If I recall correctly your books came out in '93 and '96, respectively. Are saying that your two books were responsible for the resurgence of 1pocket?

Lou Figueroa

Most of the credit for the resurgence should definitely go to the Winning One-Pocket book. I recall how Warren Costanza thanked me after his annual cross country trip explaining how it was the first time so many were willing to play the game. He's still around; just ask him. And if his word ain't enough for ya just look at the 1990 to 1992 popularity polls from the billiard magazines. The highest one-pocket had back then was 2% and 1% then zero then they didn't bother listing the one-pocket and snooker games anymore.

 

[Island Drive]

It's cool if that's your personal goal, but it's not mine and I don't think the majority of players see it that way. 99% of the players out there are hitting balls for fun and don't know who efren is. Like them, my primary goal in pool is to enjoy playing it. Working to increase pool's popularity as a national/international sport... that's not even on the radar.

All I know is, I'm not gonna sacrifice the player's needs to improve the fan experience because I know there's no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

In the domain your talking about, it doesn't deal with the needs of the fans, as it's not percieved as a sport, and in this type of arena it never will and shouldn't be anything more than what it is FUN. When I got my first skateboard in the 50's NO one thought about it being where it is now. Pool is a powerful learning and socializing medium that gives those at a young at age a platforom different than football/basketball and now soccer, which is a good thing.

 

[jay helfert]

A forty second shot clock with one extension per rack for each player would do wonders for shortening the long matches. I agree that Races to 150 are long enough matches for championship pool. If the finals is going to be a Race to 200, it better go off by 9 PM!