Does Pool Need a Dominant Player to get World Wide Attention Like Other Sports?

[DogsPlayingPool]

Yes, and I was just making another point about how sometimes what people "think" makes a game tougher and what really does is sometimes very different....until Hank told me this I would have thought the deeper rough would penalize the big drivers, but it made sense when he described why NO ROUGH would be the ultimate penalization ....and you're right, it's tough to make an exact comparison between golf and pool, it's just natural for me especially after spending so much time around Hank Haney (the 2 years before he started working full time with Tiger Woods)

Hank LOVES pool and keeps records and statistics on EVERY GAME he plays.....I spent Christmas with him and his family one year at Deer Valley and he had a pool table at his house there.....he wrote down EVERY game we played with key notes......it was well over 300 games

I have a feeling it's time to approach him about doing a pool/golf show in the Golf Channel....we've always talked about showing the correlations.

While I get Mr. Haney's idea I disagree with the conclusion that eliminating rough will necessarily make a course play more difficult. That's why the grew rough at Augusta - Tiger could just hit the ball without concern past all the trouble. But back to pool and the subject of this thread...

I don't think a dominant player would at this stage do much for pool. When you look at the MJs and Tigers of other sports keep in mind that these sports already had some exposure: Solid TV contracts, established professional leagues or tours, and daily media coverage in print and on TV. Yes, Tiger increased interest, especially to a younger audience, but the exposure was already there for him to have an impact.

As far as increasing the difficulty for professionals, I see both sides. While it's true that in golf the touring pros play under much more difficult conditions than the average club member, tour players are still able to do things and post scores that are way beyond what the average amateur can do on his "easy" conditions. So I'm not sure making it so pros struggle to the point they look more like average players is good for pro pool.

I'm also not at all convinced the pro game should be played on 10 foot tables. Firstly, I fear this would only create a disconnect with the amateurs the game is trying to attract. The industry in general is, if anything, trending towards the bar box. And there is a definite possibility that going to a table size not readily available to the average amateur would only result in reduced interest.

I also am not convinced that more difficult conditions on a 10' table are required to determine who the best players are. That suggests that this is not currently happening. But my sense is the best players in the world are currently being identified and it would continue to be the usual suspects at the end on 10 foot tables as well. I also think that the pros already play generally more difficult conditions than most amateurs - pro cut Diamonds with deep shelves, for example.

Maybe slower cloth would shake things up a bit, but I don't know. To me faster cloth is not necessarily easier. It just emphasizes a different skill. Perhaps it doesn't require the stroke of slower cloth on some shots but it requires more touch on almost every shot.

Good topic and I really like some of the threads you've been starting lately. I appreciate your contributions. :smile:

 

[Celtic]

I don't think pool CAN have a dominant player. It would take someone that NEVER misses a shot to be that person. I've seen many matches in the past few years where even the LOSER missed no more than one or two (makeable) balls. Only perfection can beat that.

And THAT is why the conditions in this game are far too easy.

Perfection can be stopped by not only a missed shot but one dry break, one kissed in cueball on the break on a perfectly controlled cueball, one ever so slight twist of fate can change the outcome of a match.

I have said that this game needs tougher conditions and that is why. You need a game where in a race to 11 between two top players it is not the case of needing to not miss a single shot, get a single bad roll, get a single dry break, or else you can lose the match. THAT is what is stopping pool from having the true top players stand out from the field, there are currently 15-20 players in the world who are all bunched up at the top and any one of them is pretty much 50/50 against any other guy on todays equippment and that is NOT good for the game.

This game NEEDS 10 foot tables with TAR sized pockets IMO. Cloth speed becomes less of a thing with the extra size of the table but the CJ might have a point there too and perhaps Simonis should look into a new slightly slower cloth made for professional style play. Not nappy super slow cloth like the IPT, but something a touch slower then our current super fast Simonis standard.

 

[Celtic]

Nick Varner won 11 Professional Tournaments one year as well....and I agree about "wa-a-at too much good talent" and that's what my main point is...."don't we have to make the equipment tougher so that one of these "good talents" can have a chance to dominate?" ... the game has actually gotten easier these days.

Dude, I would give you heaps of my free time if you were to ever try to create what you are speaking about. Something like a 10-foot with tight pockets and slower cloth tour, possibly 8-ball as that is THE game with public recognition and on the right difficulty of equipment 8-ball can be a very tough game.

Want to see a tough game? THIS is a tough game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpDSg40ZHh0

 

[asbani]

I'm in 100% agreement with CJ Wiley. actually I've discussed this before with alot of friends, and one time I even discussed this same subject with Johnny Archer on a live stream,he was in the booth, and I was in the chat pointing this same subject out, and JA talked about it.

You really do need Domination in order to make a sport popular,which in return will bring more audience and crowd,which in return will bring more sponsor and companies that has nothing to do with pool (Look tennis) then in return will make our game having more money,which in return will make more people play the game, which in return will add even more money, and it keeps going, you know what I mean, the game will get bigger, and bigger...

The reason why Domination is very important is because, there' will be a player or two that are so strong, then audience who have nothing to do with pool will know their name and wanting to watch them, then they will fell in love with one, and hate the other as an example, then you will get these audience to come back to see the person they hate, they want him to lose, or the other way around, wanting to see the dominant player that they love....

I'll again put tennis as an example, people want to watch Roger federer win because they love him so much, or even the people who hate Roger federer would still come to watch him loose, love him or hate him you will come watch him, same goes to other sports, snooker for example you have Ronnie O'sallivan, you would not believe how many people who never touch a snooker table before and still know him and want to watch him, which made snooker get bigger.

in the other hand, when it comes to pool, you put it in your TV, and check your family, they don't want to see it, they get bored, I don't think any non-pool player would watch a pool match or even know a player's name, its ridiculous.

You need Domination in pool for it to become bigger, preferebly 2 or 3 players who will dominate the game, who are much higher level than everybody else, how to make this happen? Maybe C.J. knows how.

but I do believe we had this some years ago, in the 60's Lassiter and two other guys that I don't remember their names, Crane I think.

in the 90's we had domination of Earl and Efren for few yrs, and before them a few yrs were to Nick varner and Mike sigel, also buddy hall was in the middle somewhere, but we had Domination.

Now? We don't, each tournament is won by another fella. you just don't know who will win the next, its like rolling the dice or something.

 

[Maniac]

This game NEEDS 10 foot tables with TAR sized pockets IMO.

I agree that the professional/open tournaments should be on this type of equipment. The poroblem is, if you put this equipment in poolhalls all across the country, you're going to run off all the bangers and league players that put the money into the poolhall, subsequently closing them down. We do not need any more poolhalls closing down.

If the tables in a poolhall are too tough for the average person to make balls on, they're going to find something else that is easier to do/ more fun to spend their money on. This is bad for poolhalls.

Maniac

 

[CJ Wiley]

Changing Pool - Is This Possible?

In answer to your question, "Does pool need a dominant player?", I'd have to say no because it probably has one already. Efren, Scott, Shane, or any of a host of others could fill that spot.
If, however, you are asking if there is someone who could step up to the plate and resurrect the game of pool to it's former glory, then I think your expectations are unrealistically high. To do so would require an indivual with style and charisma on par with Hollywood actors, and mega-star sports figures, which again, in my opinion, would be unrealistic.
As others here have stated, it's the public's wants and desires that drive the engine of success for any endeaver, and the cue sports, at least at this point in history, are not high on the list for change. I think our first, and more important task is to simply try and keep our pool rooms open. :smile:

Your opinion is respected and certainly appreciated.....maybe it could also be added that "realistic minds" understand and accept the world and conditions as they are and "unrealistic minds" do not accept the world and conditions as they are and seek to change them. Does this mean all changes we have seen in the world are done by unrealistic people? I think it's possible

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I agree that the professional/open tournaments should be on this type of equipment. The poroblem is, if you put this equipment in poolhalls all across the country, you're going to run off all the bangers and league players that put the money into the poolhall, subsequently closing them down. We do not need any more poolhalls closing down.

If the tables in a poolhall are too tough for the average person to make balls on, they're going to find something else that is easier to do/ more fun to spend their money on. This is bad for poolhalls.

Maniac

Either what you just said, or more likely pool rooms don't have the money to do this which results in a bigger disconnect between amateurs and the professional game. Either way, bad for pool.

 

[Otterman]

CJ, thanks for participating here and for always being a positive influence on the game of pool.

First, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE that the CLOTH USED TODAY IS WAY TOO FAST. It really penalizes those players that have developed strong strokes and rewards those with weaker strokes. You simply don't need a good stroke to move the cue ball around anymore, and balls go in off the break regularly even for players with weak breaks. Many shots executed routinely now by good amateurs were previously only within reach for the top pros, particularly long draw shots and multi-rail position shots. I think going back to a slower cloth would separate the top pros from the rest of the pack. I don't even watch matches where guys are cut-breaking. It's like watching Tiger chip rather than drive and the ball still goes 300 yards. Really tight pockets probably wouldn't be necessary with slower cloth, as players would be forced to cheat the pocket more, utilize more spin, and generally hit more powerful shots to be successful. I personally think 4 5/8" is about right. I thought I'd like watching the play on the 10 footers with tight pockets, but it didn't work out that well IMO. Too much conservative play and the rake has to be used much more, slowing the game down. I'm sure today's professionals would "adapt and overcome" given some time on them, though.

I don't think any of this helps mainstream popularity of pool, though, and I really don't think that should even be our goal. Too many other interests competing for people's time now. I think the pool world should concentrate on further developing its niche market (which is actually pretty strong) and convincing sponsors this niche is desirable from a marketing/investment standpoint. Major TV coverage from ESPN isn't really necessary anymore to reach that niche market with the internet rapidly becoming the dominant source of visual entertainment. Industry sponsorship is generally weak, but Brunswick is really the only (non-) player with the capital necessary to provide a big boost. With 2011 figures of $176 million earnings and $739 million liquidity, they could spend several million annually to support an entire tour and never miss it. Like it or not, the pool world needs their support, and it's way past time they provided it.

Lastly, pool will continue to languish long-term if the only access to a table remains "bar boxes" found in bars. A sport has no future if young people are not playing it. My 12 year-old son only picked it up because we happen to have a table at home. He otherwise would probably have never come in contact with it. Now that he's getting good, I can't even take him to local tournaments because most pool halls have gone to "Over 21 Only", which I certainly understand from an economic standpoint but it's still a huge barrier between between youth and exposure to the joy of playing pool. It's also a big reason we have very few young top American players. Most of our top guys have been on the tour for several decades and we only have Shane because he came from a pool-playing family. You don't see these barriers in the countries producing most of the young talent, particularly the Asian countries and now some of Europe. Poland has pool/billiards as a scholastic sport in many schools and is producing terrific young players. Someone mentioned on this thread the relative lack of support for American soccer, which may be true compared to the big 3 sports, but it still has grown exponentially over the last 15 years almost entirely on the back of youth soccer leagues. If kids want to play a sport, parents will spend untold fortunes to support them and this becomes a very desirable demographic with which to attract sponsorship.

 

[Celtic]

I agree that the professional/open tournaments should be on this type of equipment. The poroblem is, if you put this equipment in poolhalls all across the country, you're going to run off all the bangers and league players that put the money into the poolhall, subsequently closing them down. We do not need any more poolhalls closing down.

Why do people only see in black and white?

Some pool halls might put in one or two of these tables. It is NOT all or nothing "ok now we have to fill our entire pool hall with nothing but 10-foot tables with tight pockets!!!".

Pool halls will still have 9-foots, 8-foots, bar boxes, ect... Some might now also put in a 10-foot table, some places might not. Alot of the general public do NOT play on 9-foot diamonds despite the fact that pro pool has been played mainly on those for years now, nothing will change in this aspect if the pro game moves to 10-footers with tight pockets.

People will still play league on 7-foot tables, bars will still have bar boxes, pool halls will still have their assortement of all different styles and sizes of tables. Hard Times will STILL have their super tight 9-foot Gold Crowns that NO pro pool events are played on and they will STILL get used by the locals in that pool hall.

 

[TheThaiger]

And THAT is why the conditions in this game are far too easy.

Perfection can be stopped by not only a missed shot but one dry break, one kissed in cueball on the break on a perfectly controlled cueball, one ever so slight twist of fate can change the outcome of a match.

I have said that this game needs tougher conditions and that is why. You need a game where in a race to 11 between two top players it is not the case of needing to not miss a single shot, get a single bad roll, get a single dry break, or else you can lose the match. THAT is what is stopping pool from having the true top players stand out from the field, there are currently 15-20 players in the world who are all bunched up at the top and any one of them is pretty much 50/50 against any other guy on todays equippment and that is NOT good for the game.

This game NEEDS 10 foot tables with TAR sized pockets IMO. Cloth speed becomes less of a thing with the extra size of the table but the CJ might have a point there too and perhaps Simonis should look into a new slightly slower cloth made for professional style play. Not nappy super slow cloth like the IPT, but something a touch slower then our current super fast Simonis standard.

Two things here;

1. I'm of the opinion faster cloths make the game more difficult - you really need to be in control of the CB with a fast cloth, and CB control is the most difficult skill IMO. Fully agree it makes it a duller spectacle, however.

2. I agree short races that are often decided by a lucky roll or a dry break are crap for the viewing public, and 10 foot tables will help here. However, the biggest turn-off for the viewing public is how slow the game is, and how little interplay there is between the players. It's not a match or a contest - it's the viewing public, watching a man methodically removing balls from a table until there's none left. There needs to be a time element to force mistakes and maintain a turnover of play.

 

[Maniac]

Why do people only see in black and white?

Some pool halls might put in one or two of these tables. It is NOT all or nothing "ok now we have to fill our entire pool hall with nothing but 10-foot tables with tight pockets!!!".

Pool halls will still have 9-foots, 8-foots, bar boxes, ect... Some might now also put in a 10-foot table, some places might not. Alot of the general public do NOT play on 9-foot diamonds despite the fact that pro pool has been played mainly on those for years now, nothing will change in this aspect if the pro game moves to 10-footers with tight pockets.

People will still play league on 7-foot tables, bars will still have bar boxes, pool halls will still have their assortement of all different styles and sizes of tables. Hard Times will STILL have their super tight 9-foot Gold Crowns that NO pro pool events are played on and they will STILL get used by the locals in that pool hall.

If the poolhall ONLY puts in one or two of "these" tables, then how are they going to host a professional tournament? I thought we were discussing that the pros need to be playing on "these" tables. The only time pros play each other is in tournaments. If a poolhall is hosting a professional tournament and they only have "one or two of these tables", then how is that going to get pros playing on this equipment?

Maniac (actually DOES see colors)

 

[Maniac]

1. I'm of the opinion faster cloths make the game more difficult - you really need to be in control of the CB with a fast cloth, and CB control is the most difficult skill IMO.

OMG, I actually agree with something you posted!!! :thumbup:

I personally play MUCH better on slower cloth, and my stroke SUCKS big-time (hence, the capital letters on the word sucks ). I seem to overrun position a LOT on fast cloth.

Maniac

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Your opinion is respected and certainly appreciated.....maybe it could also be added that "realistic minds" understand and accept the world and conditions as they are and "unrealistic minds" do not accept the world and conditions as they are and seek to change them. Does this mean all changes we have seen in the world are done by unrealistic people? I think it's possible

I may have been a little quick in my response. I remember back in the very early 60's when Walter Tevis, Paul Newman, and Jackie Gleason, gave the game of pool a big shot in the arm, with the Hustler. Perhaps it could happen again. Nice thread, cjs. :smile:

 

[Celtic]

There needs to be a time element to force mistakes and maintain a turnover of play.

Most definately. I posted on how I think it should be done here.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=277081

It is a time clock that has a running average over the last 10 shots, instead of making the time for each individual shot static.

A time clock like that compels players to play quickly on standard shots and rewards their fast play for those rare moments when you have a very tricky shot to contemplate.

 

[Celtic]

If the poolhall ONLY puts in one or two of "these" tables, then how are they going to host a professional tournament? I thought we were discussing that the pros need to be playing on "these" tables.

True "professional" pool needs to get out of the pool halls and into more public areas that can house alot of spectators. Convention centres, casinos, things like the Olympic Oval in Calgary which had pro events in it, large mall concourses such as has been done in Asia with positive effects at attracting new viewers (I watched alot of a fooseball tournament in a corperate challenge that took place in West Edmonton Mall and that think got ALOT of spectators that happend by and took a look).

True professional events on an actual hypothetical professional tour should NEVER be held in a pool hall.

 

[Celtic]

I may have been a little quick in my response. I remember back in the very early 60's when Walter Tevis, Paul Newman, and Jackie Gleason, gave the game of pool a big shot in the arm, with the Hustler. Perhaps it could happen again.

It did happen again, with the Color of Money. But the people who controlled the sport in the era after that movie released and when the game had that surge in popularity had no clue how to take that surge in interest and increase it and grow the sport. Buddy Hall threw a finals match in a pro event and got pool kicked out of the casinos, the TV coverage of the sport was terrible, almost never live, and editted like crazy skipping portions of the matches. There was a chance there for pool to flourish, instead people squandered the chance that TCOM gave the sport and we are now back to nowhere.

 

[pocketspeed]

True "professional" pool needs to get out of the pool halls and into more public areas that can house alot of spectators. Convention centres, casinos, things like the Olympic Oval in Calgary which had pro events in it, large mall concourses such as has been done in Asia with positive effects at attracting new viewers (I watched alot of a fooseball tournament in a corperate challenge that took place in West Edmonton Mall and that think got ALOT of spectators that happend by and took a look).

True professional events on an actual hypothetical professional tour should NEVER be held in a pool hall.

excellent post.

also since there is no real pro tour, how would a "dominant" player be recognized?

brian

 

[Otterman]

Two things here;

1. I'm of the opinion faster cloths make the game more difficult - you really need to be in control of the CB with a fast cloth, and CB control is the most difficult skill IMO. Fully agree it makes it a duller spectacle, however.

2. I agree short races that are often decided by a lucky roll or a dry break are crap for the viewing public, and 10 foot tables will help here. However, the biggest turn-off for the viewing public is how slow the game is, and how little interplay there is between the players. It's not a match or a contest - it's the viewing public, watching a man methodically removing balls from a table until there's none left. There needs to be a time element to force mistakes and maintain a turnover of play.

1. This is like saying a new high-tech driver that allows an amateur to drive a golf ball as far as Tiger Woods requires more skill because you might overshoot the green.


2. If this is the case, why is the sport of golf so successful? The slowest game of 1-pocket should be far more entertaining for most people to watch than any golf tournament. The answer to the question is money (and the importance/social status placed on golf by our society as a result of the money behind it). If pool was played by wealthy executives in country clubs, the state of pool would be much different today. It has little to do with the pace of play.

 

[Celtic]

The answer to the question is money (and the importance/social status placed on golf by our society as a result of the money behind it).

That is a HUGE part of it but you failed to mention a major additional reason, the sport is presented to the viewers showing multiple golfers and the key/critical shots by the field both live and very slightly delayed.

If the PGA had decided

"we are going to make the sport on TV follow a single golfer over the course of the round. We will watch them hit the ball, then walk to the next shot, then wait for the green to clear, then hit their second shot, then walk to the green, then line up the putt for a minute, then putt, then sink the tap in for par, then walk to the next hole and wait for the group ahead to clear the fairway... "

the sport would have been dead in the water.

Basically pool did the above, but they went the added length of making it a 6 month old event that was being shown on TV to add some salt into the gaping wound.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

That is a HUGE part of it but you failed to mention a major additional reason, the sport is presented to the viewers showing multiple golfers and the key/critical shots by the field both live and very slightly delayed.

If the PGA had decided

"we are going to make the sport on TV follow a single golfer over the course of the round. We will watch them hit the ball, then walk to the next shot, then wait for the green to clear, then hit their second shot, then walk to the green, then line up the putt for a minute, then putt, then sink the tap in for par, then walk to the next hole and wait for the group ahead to clear the fairway... "

the sport would have been dead in the water.

Basically pool did the above, but they went the added length of making it a 6 month old event that was being shown on TV to add some salt into the gaping wound.

While obviously the production values for golf are light years ahead of pool I'm not so sure that the problem is with showing one particular match rather than cutting to different matches. Stroke play golf, which is most of the PGA tour, is played against the field. So there is interest in going from one golfer to the other because all the leaders are in direct competition with each other.

I think the analogy is closer tennis (another match play sport), which basically also shows one match at a time. However, I think pool on the internet could benefit from multiple streams so viewers could pick the match they want to watch, and change from time to time, like if a match ends early go to another match with the same production - not just tilt the camera to that table over in the back corner of the room.