Pure Pool

[12squared]

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge.

Good observation, Danny, but I do not think 3-cushion would be considered a form of "pocket billiards" as there are no pockets.

I too want to welcome you back...healthy. So glad you were able to get out of another trap, this time your health. (We were very concerned for a while based on reports on AZB).

Dave

 

[Push&Pool]

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge. These disciplines all have one thing in common and that is the rack has zero impact on who has an advantage. Under today's rules the players rack for themselves, this opens the door for treachery and or cheaters. In full rack Banks most of the top players break safe and the rack has very liitle impact on the outcome of the match. In 3- cushion billiards there is no rack period, and the 14.1 challenge at DCC is another great example of untainted and pure pool. If you watch top one pocket players rack their own in one pocket the corner ball goes often as the top players will inevitably twist the rack, I have been shown how they leave the bottom two corner balls lose to make the corner ball leaving the opposing player helpless. I now know how to protect myself from the cheats now, there out there in droves. Just a few thoughts is all.

I can see your reasoning, but the presence of cheaters doesn't affect the purity of the game itself. What makes our regional bar Last Pocket less pure? Once you start thinking about purity of something, then you begin to question the worth of its existence. There was this German guy in the middle of the last century we don't really like because of his purity ideas.

IMHO changing the racking rules to minimize cheating is a more productive idea.

 

[macguy]

My friend and I practice with what I call "total offense straight pool".
Normal 14.1 rules apply, except that the shot may be passed back if the incoming player so chooses.
We don't play to a set number, instead we keep track of our runs, and at the end of our session highest run wins.

Takes the lucky leaves right out of the picture, as well as the grind of back and forth safeties. While both are an important part of the game, we feel our practice time is best spent how we do it.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

You can play a "No count " game in 14.1. That is fun. Play something like 25 no count to 100.

 

[liakos]

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge. These disciplines all have one thing in common and that is the rack has zero impact on who has an advantage. Under today's rules the players rack for themselves, this opens the door for treachery and or cheaters. In full rack Banks most of the top players break safe and the rack has very liitle impact on the outcome of the match. In 3- cushion billiards there is no rack period, and the 14.1 challenge at DCC is another great example of untainted and pure pool. If you watch top one pocket players rack their own in one pocket the corner ball goes often as the top players will inevitably twist the rack, I have been shown how they leave the bottom two corner balls lose to make the corner ball leaving the opposing player helpless. I now know how to protect myself from the cheats now, there out there in droves. Just a few thoughts is all.

I like your picks sir! Glad to see you back and healthy!

I personally like to play all the games. My favorite game is 1-pocket but I personally think straight pool is the game of all games! Everything comes up in straight pool. Full rack banks is definitely high on the list as well. I'm probably a better banker than anything which I kinda can't figure out why, I don't play that much. I guess I just see them better.

I'm not a fan of rotation games, due to the rack issues. Personally, I would like to see rotation games have a first shot(after the break) push out!

 

[Str8PoolPlayer]

Danny, my conviction to serious pool is spelled out in my User ID.

Thanks for posting your observations on the various games
and we appreciate your being a Great Ambassador for Pool.

 

[jay helfert]

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge. These disciplines all have one thing in common and that is the rack has zero impact on who has an advantage. Under today's rules the players rack for themselves, this opens the door for treachery and or cheaters. In full rack Banks most of the top players break safe and the rack has very liitle impact on the outcome of the match. In 3- cushion billiards there is no rack period, and the 14.1 challenge at DCC is another great example of untainted and pure pool. If you watch top one pocket players rack their own in one pocket the corner ball goes often as the top players will inevitably twist the rack, I have been shown how they leave the bottom two corner balls lose to make the corner ball leaving the opposing player helpless. I now know how to protect myself from the cheats now, there out there in droves. Just a few thoughts is all.

Welcome back Danny. IMO you were one of the best all around players of this generation. You were at or near the top in 9-Ball, One Pocket and Banks. There are very few players today who are your equal at all three games. I'd love to see you back at Derby City doing your thing. If you ever need some help to get there and play let me know. You're a good horse in my book! :thumbup:

 

[Cornerman]

Good observation, Danny, but I do not think 3-cushion would be considered a form of "pocket billiards" as there are no pockets.

Wondering if anyone was going to mention this. If we're going to add 3-C, might as well add snooker.

 

[liakos]

Wondering if anyone was going to mention this. If we're going to add 3-C, might as well add snooker.

I think because 3-cushion uses the same balls make it fairly relevant! Snooker uses different size balls and cues. But I do understand the arguement and can see the point being made

 

[SJDinPHX]

Thanks for the info, Danny,

I always knew those one-pocket players were a bit "shady".

Sorry Mr. Eye..But Danny's misguided insinuation, that one pocket player's are always trying to cheat, would only apply if your opponent was too blind (or too dumb) to check the rack !

PS..But then Danny may be the only 'youngish' guy who loves 14.1, and billiards..Two games that died out 60 years ago

 

[Cornerman]

I think because 3-cushion uses the same balls make it fairly relevant! Snooker uses different size balls and cues. But I do understand the arguement and can see the point being made

3-C is definitely relevant. It's just not pocket billiards.

I suck so bad that I might be the only person in the world that can pocket a ball in 3-Cushion.

Freddie <~~~ and still laugh about it

 

[SJDinPHX]

3-C is definitely relevant. It's just not pocket billiards.

I suck so bad that I might be the only person in the world that can pocket a ball in 3-Cushion.

Freddie <~~~ and still laugh about it

I think because 3-cushion uses the same balls make it fairly relevant! Snooker uses different size balls and cues. But I do understand the arguement and can see the point being made

Just thought it worth mentioning, if you, and lliakos, really want to stay up on things, you should be aware that billiards, pool and snooker, are games played with 3 different size balls !..

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Just thought it worth mentioning, if you, and lliakos, really want to stay up on things, you should be aware that billiards, pool and snooker, are games played with 3 different size balls !..

Dick, have you noticed that these people are talking like Danny is in the room, even though he has yet to respond to any of them?

 

[Black-Balled]

I always thought that something like bowling and golf where you play against the game and not an actual opponent is a good test of who is the best. Not that we need to get rid of anything just add to tournaments another aspect of the game. It makes tournaments a little more fun and more of a happening thing.

There was a tournament like this, maybe even a few. Was supposed to be a tour, but it was a flop instead.

Total Offense Pool. Do the math...or just google it

 

[Black-Balled]

Just thought it worth mentioning, if you, and lliakos, really want to stay up on things, you should be aware that billiards, pool and snooker, are games played with 3 different size balls !..

Tell um, dick.

 

[Cornerman]

Just thought it worth mentioning, if you, and lliakos, really want to stay up on things, you should be aware that billiards, pool and snooker, are games played with 3 different size balls !..

Pretty sure I knew that... every minute of my life.

Freddie <~~~ let's get back to pocket billiards

 

[ceebee]

Maybe it's just me but I think I have figured out 3 disciplines that are the most pure form of pocket billiards. Banks, 3- cushion, and the straight pool challenge. These disciplines all have one thing in common and that is the rack has zero impact on who has an advantage. Under today's rules the players rack for themselves, this opens the door for treachery and or cheaters. In full rack Banks most of the top players break safe and the rack has very liitle impact on the outcome of the match. In 3- cushion billiards there is no rack period, and the 14.1 challenge at DCC is another great example of untainted and pure pool. If you watch top one pocket players rack their own in one pocket the corner ball goes often as the top players will inevitably twist the rack, I have been shown how they leave the bottom two corner balls lose to make the corner ball leaving the opposing player helpless. I now know how to protect myself from the cheats now, there out there in droves. Just a few thoughts is all.

I like these 3 games, but I also like Snooker. The Break in Snooker isn't a trick shot, it is pure skill, maybe with a dash of fortune thrown in.

While straight pool is a game that requires position & cluster breaks, Snooker requires position play too, maybe even a tad bit more position play. That is a personal view. I used to love playing Snooker. In my younger years, I've ran a hundred points in Snooker, lots of times. Now we play Golf on a Snooker Table with Pool Balls. Tough game.

After viewing Freddy's books on banking, I realize I missed the boat. I figure it will take 2 years out of my life to be a solid banker. Yes I can get close all the time, but we're not playing horseshoes. Close don't cut it.

My high run in Straight Pool is 48 & close to that many times, but I almost never play Straight Pool. That was on a 9 foot Brunswick Monterrey Mission table with 4 3/4 pockets.

In today's tournaments, I like 9 Ball & 10 Ball. No win on the break. I also like 8 Ball, played rotation style, having to play position on one ball is a little tougher than potting a few ducks, hoping the 8-Ball is free.

We just witnessed some players with skills to modify the rack in One Pocket, they left town with 20K plus.

Anyway I can play Pool is OK with me... I've done it off & on for 59 years.

 

[Dan Harriman]

Ok thanks for the ideas, I apologize for the late reply as I don't get to the computer too often. I too agree that snooker is and should be included as one of the pure games. Please note that in the DCC 14.1 challenge format - there is no opening break shot untill the final eight, in the beginning the player is given twelve ball in hand break shot attempts (pure pool). Also I sit corrected as 3 - cushion is not a form of pocket billiards - but it is a beautiful discipline indeed (that needs no rack). I played in the DCC one pocket a couple yrs back and had a great tournament finishing fifth. What I noticed as I got further along and in the quarter finals was the problem with my opponent who was twisting the rack dramatically, when I asked him to correct a rack where the head ball was aimed a half diamond away from center he got upset. I found myself trying to twist the rack also in order to level the playing field. I am working on designing a rack to discourage the cheats. It will be out soon and does not involve any lasers - but it works. I am just tired of seeing my opponents rack as crooked as a question mark. Full rack Bank, 14.1 challenge, 3-cushion, and now snooker are the real deal. I would add that breaking from a center spot behind the head string would make it more difficult to pocket the one in the side playing ten ball. The rack idea I have is solid and a friend of mine is currently designing it, some people love the drama of the arguing and crooked tactics - I am not one of those people. I understand at a big one pocket event down south the rule was rack your own and if you make the corner ball it spots and your opponent shoots from there? Win if you can, lose if you must - but never cheat. Some of these big computer draw events may not like my new rack idea as it keeps everyone on the square, I will be trying to market this rack in the future - adios for now and thanks for the welcome back, I am interested in improving the game where it needs fixin'.

 

[Bigtruck]

Ok thanks for the ideas, I apologize for the late reply as I don't get to the computer too often. I too agree that snooker is and should be included as one of the pure games. Please note that in the DCC 14.1 challenge format - there is no opening break shot untill the final eight, in the beginning the player is given twelve ball in hand break shot attempts (pure pool). Also I sit corrected as 3 - cushion is not a form of pocket billiards - but it is a beautiful discipline indeed (that needs no rack). I played in the DCC one pocket a couple yrs back and had a great tournament finishing fifth. What I noticed as I got further along and in the quarter finals was the problem with my opponent who was twisting the rack dramatically, when I asked him to correct a rack where the head ball was aimed a half diamond away from center he got upset. I found myself trying to twist the rack also in order to level the playing field. I am working on designing a rack to discourage the cheats. It will be out soon and does not involve any lasers - but it works. I am just tired of seeing my opponents rack as crooked as a question mark. Full rack Bank, 14.1 challenge, 3-cushion, and now snooker are the real deal. I would add that breaking from a center spot behind the head string would make it more difficult to pocket the one in the side playing ten ball. The rack idea I have is solid and a friend of mine is currently designing it, some people love the drama of the arguing and crooked tactics - I am not one of those people. I understand at a big one pocket event down south the rule was rack your own and if you make the corner ball it spots and your opponent shoots from there? Win if you can, lose if you must - but never cheat. Some of these big computer draw events may not like my new rack idea as it keeps everyone on the square, I will be trying to market this rack in the future - adios for now and thanks for the welcome back, I am interested in improving the game where it needs fixin'.

For the Professional One Pocket events we have been adding the rule to re-rack if ball is made on the break. More pure. Play it out.

Ray

 

[macguy]

For the Professional One Pocket events we have been adding the rule to re-rack if ball is made on the break. More pure. Play it out.

Ray

A ball going on the break does not mean anything bad happened. Sometimes they go in. ??????????

 

[Marc]

Pure pool

In my opinion Bank pool,wether it's Full Rack or 9Ball Banks, has a huge flaw: Too many banks are made with a kiss.

Some are more obvious than others of course, however, in many occasions a player makes a bank that went in with a slight kiss, and he keeps shooting, and if you did see the kiss, most times your opponent won't agree, and he'll keep shooting because the "it goes to the shooter rule"

Banks is a great pure game, so are the others mentioned here, but in my opinion it has a huge flaw