14.1 not fair both players should be given a chance to run balls

11 pages, and you guys are still replying to this fool. All it takes is a brief search of his post history to realize that Naji is either

A. Completely clueless about anything pool related

B. The biggest troll on this site

Remember, this is the same guy that once said Buddy Hall is a better player today than he was in the early 90s.
 
Danny Harriman said:
Straight Pool is not JUST about how many balls you can run period 'that is a broad brush or at the very least a poor generalization from your end. Not all of the top 14.1 players were present at this years event just the politically civilized "desirables". I read all posts and it is nice that your thinking outside the box to try and implement something that could be a positive change - never a bad idea. Here is why I respectfully disagree with your idea, there is a player (who's name I will not mention) that knows how to rack the balls in opening break of 14.1 in a way that I disperse too many balls every time I hit the rack. To win against this particular player I need to improve in two ares of my game when competing against him. Practice my lag and also figure out how to defend myself better against a poor rack. The one thing I do not understand is that every time I looked at the rack it appeared to me that all the balls were frozen - plus the rack was straight. Short races are more for exhibition and or tournament play - I prefer one on one and more lengthy races. In a round robin format the player who flies 12 hrs will get many attempt to lag correctly, I would try and not paint to broad of a brush on any discipline of pocket billiards, it sounds like one of your favorite players did not receive as many chances at the table as you would have hoped for.
Click to expand...

Danny, to be clear, you are saying that you know a player that can rack the balls in such a way, that even upon your own inspection, the rack is straight and perfectly frozen... yet disperses balls on the break much more than you think is normal?

If that is the case, then it sounds to me like the trick to getting balls to disperse more than normal is for them to be straight and frozen :p
 
BeiberLvr said:
11 pages, and you guys are still replying to this fool. All it takes is a brief search of his post history to realize that Naji is either

A. Completely clueless about anything pool related

B. The biggest troll on this site

Remember, this is the same guy that once said Buddy Hall is a better player today than he was in the early 90s.
Click to expand...

Look BeiberLvr, it is free forum you can say what ever you want. I do worry about you, what ever bad language you use or say have consequences on your thought process, you are occupying your brain with material that carries guilt and garbage which has detrimental effect on your life in general. Be good to yourself and be nice to people who do not agree with your thoughts.

Buddy Hall knows pool more today than he did back in the 90, but his health does not allow him to compete or travel. Pockets back then were huge compared to today's 4" big difference.
 
Danny Harriman said:
Straight Pool is not JUST about how many balls you can run period 'that is a broad brush or at the very least a poor generalization from your end. Not all of the top 14.1 players were present at this years event just the politically civilized "desirables". I read all posts and it is nice that your thinking outside the box to try and implement something that could be a positive change - never a bad idea. Here is why I respectfully disagree with your idea, there is a player (who's name I will not mention) that knows how to rack the balls in opening break of 14.1 in a way that I disperse too many balls every time I hit the rack. To win against this particular player I need to improve in two ares of my game when competing against him. Practice my lag and also figure out how to defend myself better against a poor rack. The one thing I do not understand is that every time I looked at the rack it appeared to me that all the balls were frozen - plus the rack was straight. Short races are more for exhibition and or tournament play - I prefer one on one and more lengthy races. In a round robin format the player who flies 12 hrs will get many attempt to lag correctly, I would try and not paint to broad of a brush on any discipline of pocket billiards, it sounds like one of your favorite players did not receive as many chances at the table as you would have hoped for.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out to check the rack in straight pool, i thought about it, but ignored it thinking, the CB hits the rack in close range; i guess i have to revisit. Lag is critical in all pool games, however, the tide might switch back and fourth except in one pocket you loose the lag it is generally a loss of two game 99% guaranteed with good movers.
 
sfleinen said:
Or, we could take the APA approach, and offset the skill difference by letting him have two target pockets and I play normally.

Afterall, "otherwise it isn't fair!"

:p
-Sean
Click to expand...

Why single out APA? I play in BCA leagues which are handicapped as well. Heck, most of the tournaments around are handicapped.
 
naji said:
I will give you a scenario, you paid $20 to watch a stream because your favorite player is playing, stopped by 7/11 got a pack of beer sent the wife to the mall, and sat to enjoy the match, ops all of a sudden you horse is racking balls never got a chance to shoot, match is over they love each other and gone! Happy! maybe unhappy for sure!! It happened on live stream!
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken.

In the scenario you refer to, how many innings at the table did each player heave, please?
 
I think a player should have an equal chance at winning. No matter the game or race. If he got to the table once then he had a chance even if it was to break. If he never got to the table then he should have the same opportunity as his opponent. Off hand I can't think of one sport where you can win while your opponent sits there. The lag is important but it's one shot an you can lose by a mm.
 
I think the whole debate is ludicrous.

As a player I would rather lose a race to 9 with my opponent running the entire 9 racks on me than losing 9-8 with plenty of opportunities to win the match my self. Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and admit the other guy played out of their skin.
 
naji said:
SVB lost he had his chances. I am talking about 150 and out without any chance other than 1st shot.
Click to expand...

Pool is the only game you can lose without participating that I know of.

This makes it unique in the sporting world.

In a way it more closely resembles life itself, which is also not fair.

JC
 
Black-Balled said:
I think you are mistaken.

In the scenario you refer to, how many innings at the table did each player heave, please?
Click to expand...

Player 1 scratched on the 1st shot (the break), then racking became his job, was good at it, never hit the CB again! Player 2, 150, sorry 225 and out, they rushed him because of next match, i think he would have hit the 400 mark!
 
Last edited:
naji said:
Player 1 scratched on the 1st shot (the break), then racking became his job, was good at it, never hit the CB again! Player 2, 150, sorry 225 and out, they rushed him because of next match, i think he would have hit the 400 mark!
Click to expand...

You said it yourself: each player had one inning at the table.

You can't think that the scratcher should have had an additional turn? That would mean he got 2 turns for the other guy's 1.

Not sure what you logic process is here.

In 3c events they sometimes do have an equalizing opportunity, called equal innings...in the scenario you present, equal innings were had.
 
Black-Balled said:
You said it yourself: each player had one inning at the table.

You can't think that the scratcher should have had an additional turn? That would mean he got 2 turns for the other guy's 1.

Not sure what you logic process is here.

In 3c events they sometimes do have an equalizing opportunity, called equal innings...in the scenario you present, equal innings were had.
Click to expand...

Why is alternate breaks invented, why 3 balls has to cross the head string, why double elimination; why lag and not toss a coin, why seed the players, isn't all to provide some kind of fairness to the participants?
I like in straight pool to have it race to 2 or three 100 points each race, if it happened fine, if it dose not i am not buying stream of 14.1 to watch Efren rack balls! It is only my stupid thinking, sorry, i just see that the punishment for missing one single shot to sit on the side line for three hours, just racking does not make sense! I know this is 14.1 and this is the way its been for years , and good to watch high runs...and so on......like stated earlier with race to 2 or 3 14.1 rules remains the same only tournament format needs to change; this is a compromise from my previous ideas!

Thanks for listening!
 
Naj, when you watched 'The Hustler' did you sympathize with the guys who broke Fast
Eddie's thumbs......'cause he was too good.


Maybe someone should start a new league called Thumb-breakers. :eek:
 
naji said:
Why is alternate breaks invented, why 3 balls has to cross the head string, why double elimination; why lag and not toss a coin, why seed the players, isn't all to provide some kind of fairness to the participants?
I like in straight pool to have it race to 2 or three 100 points each race, if it happened fine, if it dose not i am not buying stream of 14.1 to watch Efren rack balls! It is only my stupid thinking, sorry, i just see that the punishment for missing one single shot to sit on the side line for three hours, just racking does not make sense! I know this is 14.1 and this is the way its been for years , and good to watch high runs...and so on......like stated earlier with race to 2 or 3 14.1 rules remains the same only tournament format needs to change; this is a compromise from my previous ideas!

Thanks for listening!
Click to expand...

C'mon, man...all those items you offer in the beginning are unrelated to the fact: in the situation you originally presented, each player had the same chance to execute a turn. One failed and one succeeded.

3 balls past the headstring was instituted to eliminate the soft break.

Double elimination gives participants more value for their money.

A coin toss is far fairer than a lag.

Seeding rewards players for past performances and increases the odds that the final rounds will include the 'better' players.

None of the above seek to influence 'fairness' in a given match.
 
Black-Balled said:
C'mon, man...all those items you offer in the beginning are unrelated to the fact: in the situation you originally presented, each player had the same chance to execute a turn. One failed and one succeeded.

3 balls past the headstring was instituted to eliminate the soft break.

Double elimination gives participants more value for their money.

A coin toss is far fairer than a lag.

Seeding rewards players for past performances and increases the odds that the final rounds will include the 'better' players.

None of the above seek to influence 'fairness' in a given match.
Click to expand...

Thanks BB,
No problem, i am only asking! about 5000 people read this post, if they never changed 14.1 to race match format, so be it, what can i do, less $15 or $20.00 from future stream income!
 
When two players lag, they are both at the table, each having their turn. This is as fair as it gets. There are no do-overs. A lag is a shot that requires skill. It is possible for a player to shoot a perfect lag every time at the table. A coin flip is completely luck in which no player can ever guarantee the results...it's a 50/50 chance. Pros lag for first break, amateurs flip a coin because they don't have the skills and a 50/50 chance is greater than their chance of shooting a winning lag shot.

Alternating breaks, BIH on any foul, flipping coins instead of lagging were not instituted to make the game more fair...they were instituted to make the games easier for lesser skilled players. Many of these rules were never intended initially for the pro level, it was to help attract amateurs to leagues play.
 
naji said:
If player A runs 100 and out, player B should be given a ball in hand and attempt to run 100 and out not just practice racking & taking naps! if he fails then player A wins, if he made it, i'd have them play the match again! or maybe rotate every 50 points!
Click to expand...

I'm not offended by your idea, but I don't agree with it. I personally love the rules in straight pool. The reason I do it is because missing a ball is such a disaster and you might not shoot again. With your rule it would take the heat off the players. I like to see world class pool when the players are under extreme pressure. A very important shot is the lag. If you are an up and coming 14.1 enthusiast, I would suggest practicing the lag and also don't miss!!
 
naji said:
Player 1 scratched on the 1st shot (the break), then racking became his job, was good at it, never hit the CB again! Player 2, 150, sorry 225 and out, they rushed him because of next match, i think he would have hit the 400 mark!
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this just-completed World tournament? If so, you must be talking about the Stalev/Davis match, because that's the only one where anyone ran that many (which was actually 224).

Davis actually had 4 trips to the table in that match, not 1. Here's how it went, inning by inning:

D1 -- opening safety
S1 -- intentional foul [score 0 - (-1)]

D2 -- intentional foul [score (-1) - (-1)]
S2 -- safe

D3 -- safe
S3 -- safe

D4 -- safe
S5 -- 151 and out, starting with a kick into a combo in the rack [score (-1) - 150]

Stalev then continued shooting, adding another 73 balls, for a total of 224, and then missing the break shot for the 17th rack.
 
AtLarge said:
Are you talking about this just-completed World tournament? If so, you must be talking about the Stalev/Davis match, because that's the only one where anyone ran that many (which was actually 224).

Davis actually had 4 trips to the table in that match, not 1. Here's how it went, inning by inning:

D1 -- opening safety
S1 -- intentional foul [score 0 - (-1)]

D2 -- intentional foul [score (-1) - (-1)]
S2 -- safe

D3 -- safe
S3 -- safe

D4 -- safe
S5 -- 151 and out, starting with a kick into a combo in the rack [score (-1) - 150]

Stalev then continued shooting, adding another 73 balls, for a total of 224, and then missing the break shot for the 17th rack.
Click to expand...

Good example of why this whole thread is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top