Anyone else want to see the mosconi cup move to 10-ball?

[CreeDo]

The break wasn't harder in 2013. I honestly believe that the break wasn't difficult at all. it required very little skill, just hit the living shit out of it, and hope. The break was basically eliminated...

Well, we don't know just how difficult it is to make a ball with the new tiny break box
and 9 on the spot... because as you correctly observed, both teams were refusing to try any sort
of soft cut break, they were relying on hit-hard-n-hope, by a gentleman's agreement.

In that sense, the break is "easy" because they stopped trying to control it.

But if you locked shane in a room with a 2013 mosconi cup rack, and a 10 ball rack,
he would definitely make a ball on the break in the 10 ball rack more reliably,
for the first hour or so.

Maybe after many hours of practice, he'd figure out a way to make the mosconi 9 ball rack
cry uncle and give up a ball 90% of the time.

I don't think switching to 10b would be the worst thing in the world, but it would take away
some of the randomness that Matchroom prefers in the break.

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

And there is nothing worse than a pro playing safe because he's not good enough to make a hard shot.

Make it ball in hand after every miss.:thumbup:


So why isn't it a good shot if someone plays safe, then you can't even see the ball but you luck it in? :scratchhead:

There will always be luck in the game of pool.:yes:

Some people are just more lucky than others.:smile:

Sure get lucky on a good roll for position, etc..., you can't get away from. But, slopping a ball in is for bangers, and should be no where near professional pool. 9 ball and any other game should be made into the intentional pocket.

 

[ctyhntr]

Why limit themselves to 10-ball? Last year I saw an interesting format in NYC, where the teams played different games and different formats.

From my recollection, no one player could win more than 3 or 4 times until retired for the next player. So, you couldn't put Earl up for every match. The teams would play 8-ball, 9-ball, a rack of straight pool, and different rules (WPA, BCA, APA, NAPL, etc). So, knowing the game and the nuance of the rules was a factor in winning/losing. Team A would put up a player blind, Team B decides the game and put a player whom they think is best at that game. Depending on which team loses, the cycle repeats itself.

 

[dr9ball]

Ummmm... Yes. Better representation of skills with no slop. Can't win on the break. I'm in.

Randy

Personally I'd like to see the Mosconi Cup move to 14.1 as both 1 on 1 competition and Scotch Doubles 14.1. To me that would be worth watching but hardly anyone plays 14.1 anymore.

If that would not work. I'd like to see a round robin. 14.1, One Pocket, Banks, 8 ball, 9 ball and 10 ball. Of course that would take too long. Perhaps one specialist for each event. That also could be cool. The US might have an advantage with the addition of Banks and One Pocket.

 

[Lesh]

I think the Mosconi Cup is becoming a little silly honestly. Mainly due to the break. I'm tired of seeing all these crazy break rules. I think it takes a lot away from the game. They started with racking the 9-ball on the spot, and then it went to 3 balls passing the head-string. Now there's a break-box... WTF. It's hardly 9-ball anymore. It's almost(or is) a disadvantage to be breaking at the mosconi cup. Why not just play 10-ball instead? You won't see anybody soft-breaking, and with the extra ball they'll find that it's slightly more difficult than 9-ball. opinions?

The Mosconi Cup should be core billiards.

8-Ball, for obvious reasons
10-Ball, because 9-Ball is only marginally less ridiculous than 7-Ball
One-Pocket, because it is the culmination of every skill used in all of Cue Sports

Straight Pool is awesome, but since I am requiring that people watch One-Pocket in the Cup, I don't want to push my luck by making them watch a flock of Irving Cranes peck away at a pile of 150 balls for an hour.

I have spoken
Make it so Numbah Wahnn
Engage!

Lesh

 

[rhatten]

Sure get lucky on a good roll for position, etc..., you can't get away from. But, slopping a ball in is for bangers, and should be no where near professional pool. 9 ball and any other game should be made into the intentional pocket.

My point exactly. Credit should only be given to the most accurate 'team/player' which requires the more accurate games. imo Public has been turned off to 'tv pool' because of the sloppy play (games) allowed for our "elite players" for the 'commercial moneys'(tv schedules). 'Pool' has cut its own throat pandering to these special interests and has lost the public 'at larger interest' in so doing. I mean its hard for public (and even dedicated pool enthusiasts )to get motivated to watch a coin toss match at a sanctioned pool event... Heads will come up 10X in a row in any given set of random tosses- public is not that stupid... not much skill involved in a thumb flip. Who really wants to watch that??

Call me a 'purest' but make the games skill based (not luck) and the interested public (sponsors) will return. It doesn't require a gimmick or a gaft game to jerk the sponsor's chain. Pool needs to regain respect and honor within itself before public (sponsors) can see its merit and begin to invest time and money. Respect the Professional Level Game...as it is teaching... abuse it and you'll lose it.

'Bangers' have nothing to aspire to when the measure of 'true talent' is all about being lucky. Life/Pool isn't that simple for the masses. It' not that appealing either.

Randy

 

[Paul Schofield]

Calling balls in any game, actually increases the luck factor... the good luck factor for the player that misses. Yes! That's right. The Player who misses. If you want to ruin a game, just put in place a called shot requirement.

So where exactly does the called shot rule come into play most often? Everyone thinks it is when a player shoots directly at a ball, misses, and something finds a pocket. That rarely happens.

What happens 10X more often is that a player misses and leaves an opponent behind a ball, and now, not only does the unfortunate player have to kick, he now has to call it! So how lucky is the bad leave when a player has to call a ball. Which comes into play more often?

The periodic slopped ball is miniscule compared to a bad leave and having to call a ball.

Call nothing. Period...in any game.

You can voice your opinion all you want about the Mosconi Cup. It ain't going to Ten-Ball. Barry Hearn knows what he is doing.

 

[seven_7days]

I vote for one pocket.

Hey, at least the only crowd distractions
would be the occasional fluffy redneck snoring.

No?

 

[rhatten]

.....What happens 10X more often is that a player misses and leaves an opponent behind a ball, and now, not only does the unfortunate player have to kick, he now has to call it! So how lucky is the bad leave when a player has to call a ball. ........

The periodic slopped ball is minuscule compared to a bad leave and having to call a ball............

... It should be a 'shoot to hit' type game... ie if the intended ball isn't pocketed into the intended hole the incoming player has the pass back option... thought that had been covered as general knowledge over the passed years.

I vote for one pocket.

Pissed in One pocket balls needs rule revisions as well... like maybe spot it AFTER the inning but keep shooting if it goes in your hole (goes for both holes on the same shot)... or maybe only 1 called ball per shot, if missed inning is over -all unintended pocketed ball spot at the end of the inning. No ball on the break rule (both holes)- immediate rerack or spot after the inning-continue play in pocketed into your hole etc. One pocket could use some "professional" structure as well. Just one man's opinion.

Randy

 

[AtLarge]

... Short races, slop counts, rack your own and no jump cues, all of which so many dare to suggest block the cream from the rising to the top, have made no difference year after year after year. ...

OK, Stu, since you've said this again, I'm compelled to respond again.

No difference? Of course those things make a difference. The fact that it's always a top-notch player who wins does not mean that slop made no difference in the outcome of the event.

As I have often stated in response to the argument that the cream always rises to the top -- yes, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream. In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.

And I don't think we should always focus just on who won the event. Slop rules can change the outcome of matches throughout the event and can significantly affect which players finish in the money and how much money they earn. That should be vitally important for people trying to earn a living playing pool.

I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all events for professionals and highly skilled amateurs.

 

[sjm]

OK, Stu, since you've said this again, I'm compelled to respond again.

No difference? Of course those things make a difference. The fact that it's always a top-notch player who wins does not mean that slop made no difference in the outcome of the event.

As I have often stated in response to the argument that the cream always rises to the top -- yes, some brand of cream will always rise to the top in big events, but with no-slop rules it might be a different brand of cream. In other words: luck/slop can enable a lesser player to prevail against anyone in a short race. But luck will never enable a significantly lesser player to survive a gauntlet of top players near the end of a large event. Luck/slop, however, can be a key determinant of which top player beats another top player and which top player wins the event.

And I don't think we should always focus just on who won the event. Slop rules can change the outcome of matches throughout the event and can significantly affect which players finish in the money and how much money they earn. That should be vitally important for people trying to earn a living playing pool.

I prefer no-slop rules of some sort for all events for professionals and highly skilled amateurs.

Fine, I've given countless specific examples of how the current rules work to bring us deserving champions with almost no exceptions. If you'd like to give as many examples of where less capable players had high finishes because of the slop factor, go ahead. I just haven't seen it, and I attend most of the major events played on US soil and have for decades.

Bring it on if you have examples of players that rode a wave of luck to finish at or near the top of any major event. I just don't see any cinderellas finishing high at the top nine-ball events, let alone winning. If you've got something in mind, let me know, but the results don't bear out your suggestion that nine ball as currently contested is changing which players have high finishes.

 

[Colin Colenso]

In addition to taking away multiple results from kick shots, no-slop takes out the art of 2 way and even 3 way shots.

That said, I'm not a big fan of winning on slop, such as the 9 on the snap, but it isn't something which is putting Joe Average off the game... that's the one thing most newbies find interesting about the game.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Fine, I've given countless specific examples of how the current rules work to bring us deserving champions with almost no exceptions. If you'd like to give as many examples of where less capable players had high finishes because of the slop factor, go ahead. I just haven't seen it, and I attend most of the major events played on US soil and have for decades.

Bring it on if you have examples of players that rode a wave of luck to finish at or near the top of any major event. I just don't see any cinderellas finishing high at the top nine-ball events, let alone winning. If you've got something in mind, let me know, but the results don't bear out your suggestion that nine ball as currently contested is changing which players have high finishes.

I might have been reading incorrectly into what AtLarge is saying. But I don't think he's saying that luck is allowing a bunch of nobodies to finish high or even win. You're still going to have the best players that win, but maybe by eliminating a little luck, you'll have more consistency with who finishes first.

I also agree 100% with what Paul S. said, and it's something I've been saying for a long time now. A high majority of all luck involved in 9ball and even 10ball, is when a player misses a shot, and hooks his opponent. If you watched 10 random pro 9ball matches (races between 7 and 11), you'd be hard pressed to find any match where there were more than 2 slopped balls in any entire match.

Make players call safe, or allow the incoming player to push, and you'll eliminate 99% of all luck.

 

[itsfroze]

Is 9-Ball on it's way out as some people like to say, referring to it being to easy and as mentioned in this thread the luck factor, to easy to make balls on the snap, people like to harp on that.

I don't think so. If you take the number of six packs, no make that 5 packs, that have been run in the vast library that Accu-stats has there just aren't that many.

If all these things mentioned over and over by people, make the game so easy, then
why aren't there many more matches that I can buy and watch that have big packages?

There's the:
Danny Madina vs. Billy Incardona
Reyes vs. Takahashi
Mika Immonen vs. Jason Klatt

These matches have impresive packages in them, but why can't I think of many more Accu-stats matches with big packages if 9-ball is so easy. I'm sure there must be many times where players got on a lucky streak and posted big runs, no?

I'm sure I forgot a few matches with big packages that are available. Please tell me which matches those are, as I'd like to watch them. I also think there's just not that many. Prove me wrong if I am.

I've been talking about 9-ball. But on another note please don't steer me to the
Tar 1 match (Shane vs. Corey) that I have waiting to see that 7,8, or 9 pack run
that I've been hearing about for years (turned out it was a 4 pack).
Don't get me wrong Shane played GREAT.
There are just more big packages talked about being run than are actually run
on the table in tournaments.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Is 9-Ball on it's way out as some people like to say, referring to it being to easy and as mentioned in this thread the luck factor, to easy to make balls on the snap, people like to harp on that.

The Mosconi break seems to have fixed the easy ball off the break problem.

Even with easy balls off the break, it's never been easy to get consistent position on the next ball... it's a bit of a coin toss, and many matches have been decided on the outcome of that coin toss.

When I first discovered 9-ball 20+ years ago, I was wowed with an image of a hyper offensive shot making game. But I've come to learn that it is more a game of cautious safety play, until a reasonably make-able finish presents itself. An A player who breaks, kicks and safeties well is favorite over guys who pot and position at a way higher level.

And 10 ball is pretty much the same, without so much of a break factor. If we ever want to see potting and position shine above safeties and kicking, we'll need a new format.

 

[itsfroze]

I might have been reading incorrectly into what AtLarge is saying. But I don't think he's saying that luck is allowing a bunch of nobodies to finish high or even win. You're still going to have the best players that win, but maybe by eliminating a little luck, you'll have more consistency with who finishes first.

I also agree 100% with what Paul S. said, and it's something I've been saying for a long time now. A high majority of all luck involved in 9ball and even 10ball, is when a player misses a shot, and hooks his opponent. If you watched 10 random pro 9ball matches (races between 7 and 11), you'd be hard pressed to find any match where there were more than 2 slopped balls in any entire match.

Make players call safe, or allow the incoming player to push, and you'll eliminate 99% of all luck.

I was reading SJM's post and your post, and I might be wrong but, the winners that SJM posted for the last ten years in the DCC 9-ball seem to me to be very consistent.

You have:
2013 Pagulayan, 2012 Van Boening, 2011 Orcullo, 2010 Reyes, 2009 Van Boening, 2008 Souquet, 2007 Feijen, 2006 Souquet, 2005 Reyes, and 2004 Souquet.

3 wins for Souquet, 2 wins for Reyes, 2 wins for Van Boening and three guys that just got lucky I guess. Pagulayan, Orcullo, Feijen.

Seriously though you mention luck, there's luck in all sports.
When a golfer shanks one, hits a tree and the ball bounces back into the middle of the fairway.
When a Quarter Back throws a pass and the ball is deflected off his receivers hands
and run back for a Touch Down.

I could go on and on but I won't, and you know what, the fans love it when this happens. When we get some fans back to this sport the last thing we need/want to do is sterilize the game to the point where we take exciting moments, that the fans love out of it.

I don't think this is a point on which it matters what the players may or may not like or want. This is a point where the fans enjoyment and excitement takes president.

 

[AtLarge]

Fine, I've given countless specific examples of how the current rules work to bring us deserving champions with almost no exceptions. If you'd like to give as many examples of where less capable players had high finishes because of the slop factor, go ahead. I just haven't seen it, and I attend most of the major events played on US soil and have for decades.

Bring it on if you have examples of players that rode a wave of luck to finish at or near the top of any major event. I just don't see any cinderellas finishing high at the top nine-ball events, let alone winning. If you've got something in mind, let me know, but the results don't bear out your suggestion that nine ball as currently contested is changing which players have high finishes.

Sounds like you're missing the point I was trying to convey. We'll get "deserving champions" either way (with or without slop). Significantly "less capable players" will never (or only extremely rarely) beat many top players in a row as the result of slop or lucky shots. Inferior players do not ride "a wave of luck" to the top of professional events. Nor do I remember anyone ever saying they do. So a list of top players winning top events does not address the point I am trying to make. Of course one of the top players will win. But under different rules, it might be a different one of the top players in any given event.

Slop does change the outcome of some matches and, therefore, the order of finish in big events. I have not kept any list of matches where slop was a key determinant of the outcome, but I know that both you and I have observed it many, many times over the years in pro events, and I have experienced it many, many times in my own competitive play (at a lower level, of course).

Whenever I have heard top pros discuss this subject, they express a preference for rules that reduce the element of luck in some fashion. The "excitement" created by slop shots does get a reaction from some spectators. But I don't see pool, under any set of rules, really appealing to the masses in the U.S.. So the "excitement" argument doesn't sway me at all. In the small world of pro pool today, I like rules that have the best chance of identifying and rewarding the players who are playing the the most skillfully during each event. Some sets of rules go farther than others in reducing the effects of luck. No set of rules goes all the way, and I don't think anyone would want that. But it's so easy to eliminate some of the game's pernicious luck.

 

[AtLarge]

In addition to taking away multiple results from kick shots, no-slop takes out the art of 2 way and even 3 way shots. ...

That depends on how far you go with "no slop."

 

[AtLarge]

... I'm sure I forgot a few matches with big packages that are available. Please tell me which matches those are, as I'd like to watch them. I also think there's just not that many. Prove me wrong if I am. ...

I don't think you are wrong. In all the streamed pro matches I have watched, large packages are very rare.

 

[AtLarge]

... I don't think this is a point on which it matters what the players may or may not like or want. This is a point where the fans enjoyment and excitement takes president.

I've got to disagree with you on this, given my view of the likelihood of pool drawing masses of spectators.